RATHINAM Vs. GOPAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Rathinam won his case in the trial Court but lost in the first appellate Court. He has filed this second appeal.

(2.) This suit is for declaration and possession. The plaintiff and his brother first defendant Gopal are sons of one Pakkiri Samban through his first wife and the second defendant is Pakkiri Samban's second wife. According to the plaintiff, his father executed a Will on 17.12.1970 under which he became absolutely entitled to 'C' schedule properties described in the Will (which are described in the plaint) and vested remainder over a moiety of 'A' schedule property after the death of the second defendant and full rights in the trees in it (A-Schedule). While so the defendants have interfered with the plaintiff's possession of the suit properties and the second defendant has forcibly occupied a room in the backyard of 'A' schedule. Hence the suit.

(3.) As against this the defendants denied execution of any Will by Pakkiri Samban and they would contended that even if by any change there is a Will as alleged it should have been obtained by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation. In respect of the properties owned by Pakkiri Samban there was a family partition by means of a Karai Olai as early as 1958 and it is binding on the parties. The suit properties were given to the defendants and they have been enjoying the same as absolute owners. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.