RANJINI (DECEASED) Vs. SELVI A.PANCHAVARNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.21 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Sivakasi. They filed the suit for partition of the suit properties into 5 equal shares and to allot 3 such shares to them.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit and at appropriate places their ranks in the second appeal will also be indicated, if necessary.

(3.) The brief case of the appellants/plaintiffs is as follows:- The suit property bearing Door No.52, Vetri Gnaniar Street, Sivakasi, belonged to one P.K.Periyanna Nadar, who had five sons by names, Paulraj Nadar, Durairaj Nadar, Arumugachamy Nadar, Chinna Nadar and Chellakani Nadar. After the death of P.K.Periyanna Nadar all the five brothers were in joint possession of the suit property. P.K.P.Arumugachamy Nadar's 1/5 share in the suit property was brought on sale by public auction on 15/10/1959 by Commercial Tax Department for non-payment of sales tax by the said P.K.P.Arumugachamy Nadar. His brother P.K.P.Chinna Nadar, father of the plaintiffs, was the successful bidder and the sale in favour of the plaintiffs father, was also confirmed as evidenced by a copy of the sale certificate (Ex.A.1). After the death of P.K.P.Paulraj Nadar, his legal heirs executed a sale deed dtd. 30/8/1996 (Ex.A.3) in respect of their 1/5 share in the suit property in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. Thus, the said P.K.P.Chinna Nadar became entitled to 3/5 shares in the suit property. After the death of P.K.P.Chinna Nadar his wife, the plaintiffs became entitled to 3/5 shares in the suit property. When the plaintiffs approached the defendants to divide the suit properties into 5 equal shares and to allot 3 such shares to them, the defendants started evading. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants 1 and 2 were permitted by them to occupy the suit property, since they happened to be the sisters of the plaintiffs. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that the lawyer's notice issued by them to the defendants for partitioning the suit property, did not evoke any response. Therefore, they have filed the present suit for partition.