MARAPPAN Vs. SANTHOSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 68 of 2012 is the appellant in both the Second Appeals. He had filed S.A. No. 48 of 2015 aggrieved by the Judgment in A.S. No. 37 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal. He had filed S.A. No. 49 of 2015 aggrieved by the Judgment in A.S. No. 16 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 68 of 2012 had filed Cross Objection No. 83 of 2016.

(2.) The Second Appeals had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) O.S. No. 68 of 2012 had been field by two sisters Santhosam and Sivagami against their brother Marappan. There were two other sisters, Rajeswari and Arukkani, who were not parties to the suit. It had been stated in the plaint that the father Rasappa Gounder of the plaintiff and defendant possessed immmovable properties. They were his self acquired properties. He died on 10.12.2002. He left behind his wife Nallammal, his four daughters and one son as legal heirs. The plaintiffs claimed that all the legal heirs had an equal 1/6th undivided share in the properties. Subsequent to the death of Rasappa Gounder, a portion of the property was sold to one Nirmala. The portion left unsold was the schedule property. The mother Nallammal and other two daughters Rajeswari and Arukkani executed a registered released deed, releasing their share in the schedule properties in favour of the defendant by a deed dated 06.07.2007. The plaintiffs demanded the defendant to divide the suit properties. They issued a notice on 25.08.2007 seeking partition and separate possession. The defendant did not reply to the notice. It was also alternately averred that though the plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties were self acquired properties, subsequently it had been accepted by the parties that they were ancestral properties. It was therefore claimed that the release may by the mother and two sisters was also a release in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore claimed an undivided 1/3rd share each in the suit property and on that basis filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession.