MINOR NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN Vs. T JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 01. 08. 1995 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet in O. S. No. 473 of 1994. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) QUINTESSENTIALLY and briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be set out thus: the plaintiff is the son of the first defendant, who is the son of the second and the third defendants. The fifth defendant is the concubine of the second defendant. The fourth defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. The sixth and the seventh defendants are planning to purchase the suit properties. The suit properties are the joint family properties. As per partition deeds Exs. A1 and A2 dated 13. 09. 1958 and 05. 06. 1961, which emerged between the second defendant and his brother during the year 1958, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the second defendant. The first defendant is not an educated person well versed in worldly affairs and therefore, he was under the domination of the second defendant. The plaintiff being the son of the first defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in all the properties. The first and the second defendants are not looking after the family properly. They never care for the plaintiff and his mother, the fourth defendant. The plaintiff came to know that the second defendant brought about some transactions to the detriment of the plaintiff and they are trying to dispose of the family property. Hence, the suit for partition.

(3.) THE pith and marrow of the written statement filed by the first defendant would run thus: the second defendant unilaterally effected a partition taking undue advantage of the first defendant's lack of worldly knowledge and experience. The second defendant was dominating the family members. The fifth defendant being the concubine of the second defendant is influencing him. The Panchayat was held and in that it was agreed that the first defendant should cultivate all the suit properties and maintain the second defendant. The first defendant therefore, has been in exclusive possession of all the suit properties ever since 1986, the year in which the said Panchayat took place. Accordingly, the first defendant concluded the written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.