CHINNATHAYEE Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.763 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Salem and appellants in A.S.No.98 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem are the appellants herein.

(2.) For sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their ranking in the trial.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the suit properties into 3 equal shares and to allot one such share to them. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are sons of one Puthira Gounder and the first plaintiff is the wife of Puthira Gounder. Puthira Gounder died during the year 1997. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers of Puthira Gounder and they were all born to one Ramaswami Gounder. Ramaswami Gounder was a lessee in respect of a land belonging to Sugavaneswarar Temple and as per the wishes of Ramasamy Gounder, Puthira Gounder cultivated the properties. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are joint family/ ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants and that they are each entitled to 1/4th share in the properties. It is further contended by them that since Ramasami Gounder gave up his rights over the suit properties, even during his life time and he was being maintained by his sons. The third defendant, who is the wife of Ramasamy Gounder is not entitled to any share over the suit properties. It is also contended by the plaintiffs that a dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit properties, after the demise of Puthira Gounder, and that the defendants 1 and 2 created a deed styled as release deed and falsely contended that Puthira Gounder received Rs. 4,000/- in respect of his share in item No.2 of the suit properties. The plaintiffs after enquiry, came to know that no such release deed was executed by Puthira Gounder. In fact, Puthira Gounder was addicted to alcohol and the defendants 1 and 2 might have executed the deed in order to stall Puthira Gounder from making any alienation in favour of a stranger. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that the said release deed would not bind them (plaintiffs).