M.P.SIVASAMY Vs. M.P.PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the unanimous decisions of the Courts below in rejecting the relief of partition sought for, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 183 of 1998 has preferred the above Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff and the first and second defendants are the brothers born to Pongali. The said brothers also had a sister. It is stated that the father was maintaining the family business dealing in cotton and cotton seeds. The first defendant, who is the elder brother of the plaintiff, continued the business after the death of the father in the year 196 However, he had to leave the village, as the business was not very successful and join the business with his maternal uncle. The plaintiff after completing his school, joined the Army in the year 1969 and he served there till 1977 and thereafter, he was discharged from service. According to the plaintiff, as the Army had taken care of his daily expenses, namely, food, dress etc. and had given other allowances, the entire salary, he received, was sent to his mother. The second defendant, who is younger to the plaintiff, was employed in a transport corporation. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after his joining in the business, a vacant site measuring 18750 sq.ft. was purchased in the name of the first defendant on 06.01981. The site was purchased for providing three separate houses for the three brothers. Accordingly, three separate houses were constructed, which is the item No.1 of the suit property. Yet another property was purchased out of the joint family funds, which is shown as item No.2 of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that since the properties were purchased out of the joint family funds and they were also treated as joint family properties, he was entitled for a share. Thus, he wanted ?rd of the share in the property. Hence, he filed the suit.

(3.) The first defendant filed his written statement and resisted the suit denying the facts set out in the plaint leading to the cause of action for the suit. The first defendant also specifically denied the fact that the houses were built out of the joint family funds. It is his specific case that the houses were constructed with his own contribution and as it was purchased by the individual contribution, the plaintiff was not entitled for any claim, much less a claim that they are joint family properties. The second defendant also adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant.