RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, who had lost before both the Courts below have preferred this second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.104 of 2016 dated 23.06.2017, on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2016 in O.S.No.88 of 2013, on the file of the learned Sub Court, Bhavani.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition and separate possession. The suit property and other properties originally belonged to Elaya Gounder, who had two sons, namely, Sellappa Gounder and Perumal Gounder. On 13.11991, there was a partition of the joint family properties between Elaya Gounder and his two sons, Sellappa Gounder and Perumal Gounder. As per the partition, 'A' schedule property was allotted to Elaya Gounder, 'B' schedule property was allotted to Sellappa Gounder and 'C' schedule property was allotted to Perumal Gounder, respectively. Now, the properties allotted to Perumal Gounder is in dispute as the plaintiff is the daughter of the said Perumal Gounder and the defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and wife of the deceased Perumal Gounder. According to the plaintiff, she is entitled 1/3rd share in the property, after the division took place and hence, suit has been filed for partition and separate possession.

(3.) Resisting the suit, the defendants had filed a written statement, stating that as per the partition, 'A' schedule properties were allotted to Elaya Gounder, 'B' schedule properties were allotted to Sellappa Gounder and 'C' schedule properties were allotted to Perumal Gounder. The second defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share after the death of the father in the properties that was divided in 1991 by a partition deed. It is the further case of the defendants that during the life time of the father, he had executed a release deed in Doc. No.2159 of 2009, relinquishing his 50% share of the properties. According to the defendants, since 50% share of the suit properties was released in favour of the first defendant, by the father, the plaintiff cannot have any claim. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the suit was decreed as prayed for and in the appeal filed by the defendants, the same was confirmed.