PARAMESWARI ALIAS RAMABAI Vs. LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.1994 made in O.S. No. 11 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, thereby dismissing the suit without costs, which was filed by the appellant herein against the respondents for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit properties and for recovery of the share of profits from the date of suit and for costs.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, there were six defendants to the suit, out of whom, the first defendant has been reported to have been dead on 18-01-93 i.e., during the pendancy of the suit and hence at the time of trial, there had been only five defendants, who are figuring as respondents in the above appeal suit.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by defendants 2 to 6, they would deny the plaintiff to have been adopted by Kuppusamy Naicker and the custom pleaded towards the adoption as not only false but devoid of particulars and a begging details. They would further contend that the plaintiff is neither the adoptive daughter of Kuppusamy Naicker nor had she been brought up by him in such capacity; that the plaintiff is the daughter of one Angammal, who is younger sister of the first defendant Rajammal; that since Angammal was ailing and her husband Narayanaswamy was leading a wayward life, Kuppusamy Naicker and the first defendant not only looked after Angammal by keeping her at their house, but also brought up the plaintiff; that the marriage of the plaintiff was celebrated in 1964 aided by Kuppusamy Naicker and at the request of the newly married couple, they were permitted to reside in the village to look after the cultivation; that since the plaintiff and her husband started pilfering the income from the land, they were sent out of the village and these defendants would deny the allegation that the husband of the plaintiff was treated illitom son-in-law by Kuppusamy Naicker and would also deny the allegation that the plaintiff is in enjoyment of Ac.0.55 cents in item Nos. 39 and 40 of the plaint schedule properties.