POUNAMBAL Vs. KANNAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No. 199 of 2003 aggrieved by the modification of the decree for partition granted by the lower Appellate Court has come up with this second appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Marimuthu @ Aanai Gounder who died in 1988 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff would further contend that she is entitled to ? share in Items 1, 2 and 4 of the suit properties. As regards Item No.3, it is the contention of the plaintiff is that her mother, Pounambal settled her 1/5th share to the plaintiff and therefore she is entitled to a larger share namely, 2/4 share in the 3rd item of the property and her mother Pounambal is not entitled to a share in the Item. 3 of the property.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff has not included all the properties belonging to Marimuthu @ Aanai Gounder. They had filed a counter claim seeking inclusion of 2 items of properties and seeking partition of those two items also. The claim of the plaintiff to a larger share in Item 3 was also disputed by the defendants. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the plaintiff has not proved that she is entitled to larger share in Item. 3 of the suit property. It has also found, Item 2 in the counter claim belonged to the father-in-law of the plaintiff and not Marimuthu, hence, the same is not liable for partition.