MUTHUSAMY Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant in O.S.No.227 of 2010 having suffered a decree for partition and separate possession of 1/8 share each of the plaintiffs has come with this second appeal.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.227 of 2010 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking partition and separate possession of their -? share each, in the suit property.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belongs to one Shankara Moopanar. He died leaving behind his son Muthusamy Moopanar and three daughters. The three daughters of Sankara Moopanar are said to have released their interest in the property in favour of Muthusamy Moopanar. The said Muthusamy Moopanar died leaving behind one son Pitchaiya and three daughters. The said Pitchaiya died in the year 1995 leaving behind the first defendant, his wife and defendants 4 to 7, his children. 3. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property is the absolute property of Muthusamy Moopanar and therefore as his daughters being Class I heirs, are entitled to -? share each. The second defendant, the other daughter of Muthusamy Moopanar, supported the claim of the plaintiffs. The third defendant, who is the purchaser from heirs of Pitchaiya, namely the first defendant and defendants 4 to 6 resists the suit contending that the suit property is ancestral property and therefore, the plaintiffs, who were married prior to 1989, and whose father died prior to 2005, would not be entitled to claim equal share as that of the son.