ANJALAI Vs. PAVUNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND APPEAL filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure judgment and decree dated 4.11.1999 made in A.S.No,73 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 16.3.1999 passed in O.S.No,578 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No,73 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No,578 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai

(2.) THE defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. THE respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) THE brief case of the defendant is as follows: (i) According to the defendant, the suit property originally belonged to one Balakrishnaraju and it was not purchased by Kannan from out of his own funds. According to the defendant, the property was purchased from out of the joint family funds, since the plaintiff's husband Kannan was maintaining the family as his father became very old and that he was the elder son. THE defendant denied the contention that Kannan was put in possession and he had constructed a house in the suit property. According to the defendant, the joint family property also being enjoyed by all joint family members without making partition. According to the defendant, the plaintiff's husband Kannan is also residing in the suit house. According to the defendant, the plaintiff's two sons Annandurai and Elumalai are residing at Bombay. THEre was no partition among the family members regarding the suit house and other properties. (ii) According to the defendant, the plaintiff had a son by name Gandhi. THE plaintiff's husband Kannan was at Bombay. Gandhi was enjoying his father's property jointly with the defendant's husband, Chinnapaiyan. Chinnapaiyan and Gandhi mortgaged their undivided joint family properties to one Munia Gounder to discharge their family debts. THE defendant's husband died ten years back. According to the defendant, her husband and the plaintiff's husband are brothers and not distant pangalis as stated by the plaintiff. THE suit property was purchased by plaintiff's husband, defendant's husband and their father Arumugam in the name of plaintiff's husband. Arumugam and his elder son jointly sold their joint family house at Su.Valavetti and the suit house was constructed from out of the sale consideration of the said house. According to the defendant, the plaintiff's husband had no independent source of income to purchase the suit property. THE suit house was constructed jointly. Arumugam, Kannan and Chinnapaiyan were the members of the joint family and they treated and enjoyed the suit property as joint family property and after the death of Arumugam, his wife and two sons were jointly enjoying the suit house and other landed property by residing in the suit house and the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.