R SUBURATHINAM Vs. T GOVINDARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore in O.S.No.25 of 2005 and the counter claim, this appeal is focussed.

(2.) BROADLY but briefly, narratively but precisely, the facts as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed and parodied thus: The suit properties described in the 'A' and 'B' schedules appended to the plaint originally belonged to the plaintiffs' paternal grand mother, Thirumalai Ammal, who derived title to the suit properties through her paternal ancestors. The patta stood in the name of Thirumalai Ammal in respect of the 'A' scheduled property, which is an agricultural land measuring an extent of 11.66 acres. The 'B' scheduled property, which is a house property also came to be vested with Thirumalai Ammal from her paternal ancestors. After the death of Thirumalai Ammal, her only son Thiruvenkadam Pillai, derived title to the suit properties and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thiruvenkadam Pillai had one son and one daughter, namely the deceased first plaintiff Booshanambal, and D1, Govindaraju Pillai. The said Thiruvenkadam Pillai died intestate on 04.02.1963 leaving behind the first plaintiff, Booshanambal and D1, Govindaraju Pillai as his only legal heirs and they derived absolute title to the suit properties and each of them were entitled to half share in those properties. D1, along with his sons D2 to D4, are looking after the 'A' scheduled property and they are sharing the income from it with the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff Booshanambal, along with her legal heirs P2 to P10 have been in possession and enjoyment of the 'B' scheduled property for over 40 years. The said Booshanambal, the first plaintiff died on 30.11.2004 leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 to 10 as her legal heirs to inherit her properties. The sons of the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 and 4 have been jointly running a Milk Dairy in the 'A' scheduled property. Subsequently, bad blood started running in the relationship of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Hence the suit for partition of 'A' and 'B' scheduled properties into equal shares and for allotting one share to the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed the reply statement denying and refuting the averments/allegations in the written statement as well as in the counter claim. THE plaintiffs also denied the very genuineness of the Will allegedly executed by Thiruvenkadam Pillai. THE plaintiffs never admitted that they are only permissive occupiers or gratuitous occupiers of the 'B' scheduled property. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the counter claim.