VENKUSAH Vs. BASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th defendant who suffered a decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/3rd share in the 'B' Schedule Property in O.S.No.153 of 2011, on its confirmation in A.S.No.27 of 2012 has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) The suit was laid by the plaintiff claiming that the suit B Schedule properties were ancestral properties having been allotted to his father, 2nd defendant namely Murugesan at a partition that took place between Kiliyappa Naicker, Ganesan, the 1st defendant and Murugesan, the 2nd defendant on 19.02.1988. Therefore, being the property allotted to a coparcener at the partition, the same will be held by him as coparcernary property and his children would acquire a right by birth. Thus, the plaintiff would claim 1/3rd share in the property. The 2nd defendant had sold the property to the 4th defendant on 21.12.1992. Hence, the 4th defendant was also made a party to the suit. As regards 'A' Schedule property, it was the case of the plaintiff that the same was allotted to Kiliyappa naicker and on his death, it devolved on his heirs. Therefore, he is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit 'A' Schedule property.

(3.) Expectedly, the defendants 1 to 3 who are the paternal uncle, father and brother of the plaintiff remained exparte. The 4th defendant purchaser contested the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable. It was also claimed that the suit is barred by limitation. While admitting the fact that the suit 'B' Schedule Property was allotted to the 2nd defendant at the partition Deed dated 19.02.1988, the 4th defendant would contend that the suit filed after a lapse of three years from the date on which the plaintiff attained majority is barred by limitation.