SRIDHAR Vs. SHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by defendants No,3 and 4 against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2002 made in O.S.No.102 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court NO.1) at Chengalpattu.

(2.) THE suit was filed for partition and separate possession of 6/10th share of the plaint schedule property and also for mesne profits. THE undisputed facts rather the admitted facts are that one Vedachala Naicker was the owner of the plaint schedule property. One Kanniammal was his wife. THEy had no issues. Vedachala Naicker under Ex.A.1 dated 29.9.1946 executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife Kanniammal and one Jayaram Naicker, his brother-in-law in respect of the plaint schedule property. THE said Vedachala Naicker died in the year 1952. During his life time, after Ex.A.1, and during the life time of Kanniammal and Jayaram Naicker, the properties were enjoyed jointly by Kanniammal and Jayaram Naicker. Jayaram Naicker died on 21.10.1972. Jagadhambal first defendant is the wife of Jayaram Naicker. Defendants No,2 to 4 and the plaintiff are the legal heirs of Jayaram Naicker. THE plaintiffShanthi filed the above suit for partition of 6/10th share and mesne profits on the ground that after the death of Vedachala Naicker, Kanniammal took her in adoption and as such she is the adopted daughter of Kanniammal. Being the adopted daughter of the deceased Kanniammal, she is entitled to the entire half share of Kanniammal in the suit property. In respect of the other half share, she is entitled to 1/5th share, being the daughter of Jayaram Naicker. Thus, she is entitled to 6/10th share of the suit property. THE further case of the plaintiff is that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the properties are house properties deriving rental income of Rs.20,000/- per month. She is entitled to 6/10th share from the income of the house property.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellants, it is contended that when the plaintiff has come forward with false claim that she was the adopted daughter of Kanniammal and trial Court having found that the claim is not sustainable ought to have dismissed the suit in its entirety by totally eschewing the evidence of P.w.1- the plaintiff. The trial Court has not appreciated the facts of plaintiff relinquishing her right after getting a sum of Rs.75,000/- in cash and cement and steel to the value of Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of putting up her own house, in a proper perspective. The finding that Ex.B.3 Will is not genuine is also in accordance with law.