CHINNIAN Vs. MUTHAYYAN ALIAS MUNIYANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. Facts in brief The defendants who have suffered a decree for partition and separate possession in the suit properties are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE suit had been laid by the respondent for partition on the ground that the suit properties had been purchased in the name of his father Muthan @ Perumal and after his father, the plaintiff and the first defendant who are brothers are each entitled to half share. THE second defendant who is the wife of the first defendant claimed title to some of the items by virtue of the settlement from the first defendant and therefore she had also been made as a party.

(3.) IT is vehemently argued by the appellants that the Court below had not properly considered the fact that Muthan and Perumal were two different persons and the Court's reliance in the patta referring the plaintiff as the son of Perumal was clearly a mistake and that it was a recent entry before the institution of suit. The appellant also contended that admittedly the plaintiff was living away in foreign country in Srilanka . The father's name of the plaintiff would have been definitely referred to in his passport and it was deliberately not filed and hence adverse inference had to be drawn. IT was the further contention of the appellant that even the witness PW2 did not specifically deny the suggestion that Perumal and Muthan were two different persons and no positive evidence had been given that the plaintiff was the son of Perumal and not of Muthan and that they were not two different persons.IV. Consideration of the issue of paternity