THANGAVELU UDAYAR Vs. PARAMASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st defendant in the suit is challenging the correctness of the decree for partition and separate possession of one-half share passed by the trial Court, and confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the son of one Vadivelu Udayar by his second wife Pattu Ammal. THE 1st defendant is the son of the Vadivelu Udayar by his first wife Thangammal. Vadivelu Udayar's mother-in-law Meenakshi Ammal executed a gift deed on 3.6.1937 marked as Ex.A-3 by which, she gave the suit properties to Thangavelu Udayar, who was a minor at that time, and Vadivelu Udayar. She handed over possession of the properties to them to be enjoyed by them absolutely. THE gift deed proceeds to state that in the event of Vadivelu Udayar marrying for a second time and begetting male issues, such issues would take the properties along with Thangavelu Udayar absolutely and enjoy the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was executed just prior to the marriage of Pattu Ammal with Vadivelu Udayar which was brought about at the instance of Meenakshi Ammal, the donor, when Pattu Ammal's father had insisted upon making of a provision to safeguard the interests of Pattu Ammal's children. It is not necessary to consider whether that case is proved or not in view of the fact that Ex.A-3 has been found to be genuine by both the Courts below. In fact, the decision of the Courts below as regards the genuineness of Ex.A-3 is based upon the admission made by the 1st defendant in Ex.B-5, a notice issued by him on 17.2.1975 to the 5th defendant.

(3.) ALL the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant having been rejected, the second Appeal has to fail, and it is dismissed. However, the parties being closely related, there will be no order as to costs.