JAGADAMBAL Vs. SANKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2006 made in O.S.No. 533 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court " Fast Track Court 1, Chengalpattu.

(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff filed the suit seeking a Decree for Partition of the suit properties into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to her and for a Decree directing defendants 1 to 3 to pay past mesne profits to her from all the assets of the joint family properties and to render an account to the plaintiff of the income, profits and realization from the suit properties from the year 1999 till date of delivery of possession and for costs of the suit. THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that her father Sadasivam and mother Tirupuraammal had three daughters, namely, the plaintiff Jagadambal, Jamuna and Suseela and a son by name Thiruvengadam and Sadasivam pre-deceased her wife Tirupuraammal and Tirupuraammal died intestate in the year 1988 leaving behind the plaintiff and three other heirs. According to the plaintiff, Tirupuraammal owned landed property at No.143, Madambakkam village, Sudarsan Nagar, East Tambaram, Kancheepuram, measuring an extent of 4.12 acres and it is the joint family property of the plaintiff Jagadambal, Thiruvengadam, Jamuna and Suseela, each having 1/4 undivided share, and Thiruvengadam being the male member was entrusted with the maintenance of the said property and he died on 28.2.1999 and Jamuna died on 23.1.2003 issueless and Suseela died on 8.3.2003 leaving behind defendants 4 to 9 as her heirs. It is further stated by the plaintiff that since Jamuna died issueless, the plaintiff's 1/4 undivided share was converted to 1/3 undivided share in the joint family properties and the plaintiff is also entitled to profit and shares on the income derived from the joint family properties, namely, Schedule 'B' and 'C'. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 are collecting Rs.12,000/- as monthly rent from the shops and Rs.30,000/- per month from the rice mill and they are not rendering any account nor giving any share to the plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff demanded partition of the suit properties through lawyer's notice dated 8.10.2002 and the defendants though received the same, did not send any reply nor comply with the demand and hence the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1, 2 and 6 filed additional written statement, which was adopted by the third defendant, in which it is stated that the suit properties were not purchased by Sadasiva Mudaliar in the name of his wife Tirupuraammal and the plaintiff through her counsel served a memo demanding copies of the Will of Tirupuraammal and the Will of Sadasiva Mudaliar and both the copies were given to the counsel for the plaintiff and the Will executed by Tirupuraammal is true and valid and the plaintiff is not entitled to any share much less 1/3 share claimed by her in the suit.