KUPPAN Vs. MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 12 of 2005 dated 26.4.2006 reversing judgment of the trial Court in O.S. No. 279 of 2000 dated 25.1.2005 and thereby passing Preliminary decree for partition of 2nd plaintiff's l/4th share in the suit properties as son of late Sadasiva Gounder.

(2.) Plaintiffs and defendant claim as legal heirs of deceased Sadasiva Gounder and they are related as under: Sadasiva GounderfDied in 1979] =Unnarnalai Ammal = Chinna Ammal Muniammal[PlJ 1st wife [died in 1988] 2nd wife [died-issueless] 3rd wife] Kuppan (Son) Dhanasekaran(Son) [Appellant-Defendant] [2nd Respondent-2nd Plaintiff] Case of plaintiffs is that suit properties belonged to Sadasiva Gounder and he died intestate in 1979. According to plaintiffs, plaintiffs and defendant as legal heirs of Sadasiva Gounder are entitled to succeed to the suit properties. At the time of death of Sadasiva Gounder, 2nd plaintiff was aged 13 years. After the death of Sadasiva Gounder, defendant was maintaining family properties as Kartha of joint family. plaintiffs and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and inspite of repeated demands, defendant has not effected partition. After issuing pre-suit notice, plaintiffs filed suit for partition of their half share in the suit properties.

(3.) Resisting the suit, defendant filed written statement denying 1 st plaintiff as the wife of Sadasiva Gounder. Status of 2nd plaintiff has legal heir of Sadasiva Gounder is also denied. According to defendant, 1 st plaintiff was the wife of one Srinivasa Pillai, son of Subbaraya Pillai and there was no valid marriage solemnized between 1st plaintiff and Sadasiva Gounder and therefore, plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit properties. Since plaintiffs requested the defendant to give something to plaintiffs, after exchange of notices defendant gave 0.78 acres of land and Another 0.07 cents in S. No. 142/1A and l/9th share in the Well Electric Motor and Pumpset in S. No. 152/A. According to defendant, plaintiffs are given 0.75 acres of land and share in the Well only on humanitarian grounds and not any legal grounds and Patta was also transferred in the name of plaintiffs. Since, there was no valid marriage between Sadasiva Gounder and 1st plaintiff, plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit properties.