DEVARAJI Vs. POONURANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2007 passed in A.S.No,30 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Thiruppathur, confirming the judgment of the trial Court, namely, District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur, Vellore District, in O.S.No,210 of 1997, which was a suit for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) PITHILY and precisely, tersely and briefly, avoiding discursive delineation of facts in view of the case of both sides having been set out in detail in the judgments of both the Courts below, I would like to set out the germane facts thus: The plaintiff filed the suit for partition to an extent of 1 acre 84 cents in S.No.136/4 Kadirimangalam Village, Thirupattur Taluk on the ground that the suit property along with 14 cents of land, totally measuring 1 acre 98 cents originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff Krishnammal as per sale deed dated 20.03.1936 during her life time, she permitted D2, the brother of the plaintiff to raise construction in 14 cents of land in S.No.136/4 after the death of Krishnammal, D3 the sister of the plaintiff relinquished her right over the suit property as such, Krishnammal's three sons, namely, the plaintiff, D2 and deceased D1 represented by his legal representatives D4 to D10, were entitled to one-third share each in the suit property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same jointly. Pleading as above, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition for allotting his one-third share in the suit property.

(3.) PER contra, remonstrating and refuting, denying and disputing, the averments/allegations in the plaint, D4 to D7 filed the written statement which was adopted by D8 to D10 the gist and kernel of it would run thus: Krishnammal was not the owner of the suit property as per the sale deed dated 20.03.1936 in fact, Krishnammal was entitled to an extent of 1 acre 21 cents in S.No.136/4 and the remaining extent in that Survey Number belonged to one Ramasamy. However, Krishnammal was also entitled to an extent of 69 cents in S.No.135/3 and an extent of 70 cents in S.No.139/4. D2 is not in occupation of 14 cents in S.No.136/4 on the permission of Krishnammal. The suit property is not under the joint possession of the plaintiff, D1 and D2. Around the year 1960, there was oral partition among the plaintiff, D1, D2 and D3 and in that the land bearing S.No.135/3b was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the land bearing S.No.139/4 was allotted to the share of D2 and those are all income yielding fertile lands. However, an extent of 1 acre 21 cents in S.No.136/4 was allotted to D1 taking into consideration various factors. Ever since that time, the sharers have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions. Accordingly they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.