KARUNAI AMMAL Vs. KARUPPA GOUNDER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who could not succeed in either of the Courts below in her suit for partition and separate possession of her one -fourth share in the C Schedule properties, has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) The first defendant, in his written statement, contended that Rayappa enjoyed the eastern half and Rama Goundar enjoyed the western half. It is true that Rayappa executed the settlement deed. Exhibit A -1, in favour of the daughters. But, in execution of a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 738 of 1928 obtained against Rangappa, Ramaswami Goundar (brother of the first defendant) purchased in Court -auction an undivided half share in all the fields. Thereafter, he took possession through Court on 20th March, 1930. In a partition that took place in the family on 21st October, 1950 as evidenced by Exhibit B -4, the property came to be allotted in favour of the first defendant. At no point of time either the plaintiff or her mother was ever in possession. The title, if any, of the plaintiff's mother had been extinguished by uninterrupted, peaceful and adverse possession for over forty years by the first defendant and his predecessors -in -interest. The second defendant, as the purchaser of the other survey numbers, namely the western portion, is in enjoyment of that property. The second defendant's predecessors -in -title installed a motor and pump -set in the well in the year 1955. The plaintiff's mother did not contribute anything for the aforesaid purpose. It is the first defendant who alone is paying the kist. It is false to say that the plaintiff was dispossessed or ousted in 1968.

(3.) The written statement of the second defendant was to the effect that he was an unnecessary party to the suit since he had nothing to do with the dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant.