DORAIRAJ Vs. DORAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: These two second appeals are filed against the common judgment and decrees dated 26.09.1995 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No.160 of 1994 and A.S.No.161 of 1994 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1992 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur in O.S.No.99 of 1987.) These two second appeals have been filed by the second defendant animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 26.09.1995 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No.160 of 1994 and A.S.No.161 of 1994 in modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1992 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur in O.S.No.99 of 1987. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) BROADLY but briefly, narratively but precisely, the plaintiff's case as stood exposited from the plaint and other records could be epitomised thus: (i) One Pallikoodathan had three sons, viz., Chidambaram, Sengan (D1) and Natesan. Sengan (D1) had four children, viz., three sons and one daughter viz., deceased Rajakannu, Duraisamy the plaintiff herein, Durairaj (D2) and Mookayee (D8). D9 to D14 are the children of D2 and Rajathi; Deceased Rajakannu and his wife Papathi (D3) gave birth to D4 to D7; the relationship among the parties is an admitted one. (ii) During the pendency of the suit D1 Sengan died. Whereupon his daughter D8 Mookayee was also added and his other legal representatives were already on record. The suit properties comprised of 79 items described in the schedule to the plaint constituted the joint family property of D1 Sengan and his three sons, viz., Duraisamy, the plaintiff, D2 Durairaj and deceased Rajakannu and they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties jointly. As such, the four co-parceners were entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit properties. (iii) D1 and D2 colluded together and created some void documents in respect of the suit properties so as to deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate right over those properties; (iv) The plaintiff's demand for amicable partition ended in a fiasco. The claim of defendants 9 to 14 as though they are beneficiaries under the alleged Will executed by the deceased D1 during the pendency of the suit is nothing but a false one and the said Will is a forged document. (v) Accordingly, he filed the suit for partition, for dividing the suit properties.

(3.) THE gist and kernel of the written statement filed by D3 to D7 would run thus: D3 to D7 are the legal heirs of deceased Rajakannu, the one of the sons of D1 and as such, they claim 1/3 rd share in the suit properties. Pithily and precisely stating they sail with the plaintiff in this litigation.