PAPPATHIAMMAL (DIED) Vs. G ALAGARSAMY REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, wherein the Court below has granted a decree for declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to B and C schedule properties, possession and for mandatory injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the entire A schedule properties mentioned in the plaint belongs to Govindareddiar-I. The said Govindareddiar-I had two sons by name Govindareddiar-II and Venkatasamyreddiar. Govindareddiar-II and Venkatasamyreddiar divided the A schedule properties. Thereafter the B and C schedule properties have been allotted to Venkatasamyreddiar. The B and C schedule properties are part and parcel of A schedule properties. What is owned by Govindareddiar after oral partition is the other properties excluding B and C schedule properties. Govindareddiar-II had two sons who are the defendants 1 and 5. The defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of first defendant. Similarly Venkatasamyreddiar had two sons. The first son G.V. Ramasamy Reddiar died issue less. The second son Gnanappa Reddiar had two sons by name N. Ovi Reddiar and Ramasamy alias Asaithambi. The said Ramasamy alias Asaithambi is P.W.5. The plaintiff purchased the B schedule property from G.V. Ramasamy Reddiar who is the son of Venkatasamyreddiar. Similarly he purchased C schedule property from Ramsamy alias Asaithambi. The above said properties have been purchased under Ex.A9 dated 20.12.1974 and Ex.A10 dated 21.12.1974 by registered sale deeds. In view of the interference by the defendants who are admittedly descendants of Govindareddiar-II, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. The suit has been filed on the basis of Exs.A9 and A10. However an alternative plea is also sought for seeking partition and separate possession based upon the above said document, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the partition has not been effected.

(3.) The case of the defendants in a nut shell is as follows: