GURUVAMMAL Vs. SUBBIAH NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 135 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 104 of 1987. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 350 of 1976 on the file of the District munsif, Kovilpatti is the appellant in S. A. No. 3 of 1989.

(2.) THE suit in O. S. No. 135 of 1976 was filed by one Ramu ammal against the respondents herein for declaration and injunction in respect of five items of properties. Pending suit she died and the present appellants who are respectively her daughter and grand daughter came on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 and pursued the suit. THE case as set out in the plaint was as follows: THE suit properties originally belonged to the first respondent herein, the first defendant in the suit and his brother late krishnaswamy Naicker. THE two were divided brothers, the deceased first plaintiff was their mother. Krishnaswamy Naicker died leaving his mother as his only legal heir. THE suit properties were allotted to the share of Krishnaswamy naicker. He was in possession and enjoyment as his exclusive properties. Patta also stood in his name. After his death the first plaintiff as his sale heir was in enjoyment of those properties. THE first respondent herein who had no semblance of right, interest or possession over the suit properties interfered with the possession of the first plaintiff. THE second respondent the second defendant in the suit is the wife of the first respondent and respondents 3 to 6 defendants 3 to 6 were the close associates of the first respondent. THEy were giving out that they would interfere with the first plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the suit was therefore necessitated.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif framed the necessary issues in the suits and there was a joint trial by consent of all the parties and a common judgment was pronounced dismissing both the suits. THE learned district Munsif held that there was no division as alleged by the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 135 of 1976. THE brothers were not enjoying the suit properties as joint tenants as alleged by Subbiah Naicker, the partition alleged was also true, the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the settlement deed set up was not valid and the first item in O. S. No. 350 of 1976 was not given to the mother for her maintenance.