- (1.) The appellants herein have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1999 made in A.S. No.77 of 1995 by the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai confirming the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai dated 13.09.1994 made in O.S.No.163 of 1987.
(2.) The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No.163 of 1987 and the respondents herein are the defendants therein. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties in the suit has been referred to hereunder: The Second Appeal was originally filed before the Principal Seat, viz., the Madras High Court. Notices were sent to the respondents by the Principal Seat. But except the seventh respondent, none of the respondents have entered appearance. After the formation of the Madurai Bench, due notices were sent to the appellants and respondents. But, excepting the appellants and seventh respondent, no appearance was made by the respondents 1 to 6. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the first respondent died. Since the respondents 2 to 6, who are the sons and mother of the deceased first respondent were already on record, an application to implead the widow and daughter of the first respondent as respondent Nos.8 and 9 was filed and allowed. Later, the sixth respondent also died and the respondents 2 to 5, 7 to 9 were recognized as her legal heirs. Later, the eighth respondent died and her sons and daughter, the respondents 2 to 5 and 9 were recongised as her legal heirs. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has filed memo stating that the sixth and eighth respondents had died. In the above said impleading applications, due notices were sent to the respondents and the proposed parties and only after following the due process, the said applications were allowed. After such impleadment, due notice was sent to the respondents 2 to 5 and 9 in the Second Appeal through Court and Post and Private notice was also ordered and the ninth respondent had received the notice, but the respondents 2 to 5 have refused to receive the notice. Hence, substituted service by way of paper publication was made to the respondents 2 to 5. Inspite of service of notice upon the ninth respondent and inspite of sending notice to respondents 2 to 5 as stated above, no appearance has been made for them. Accordingly, the Second Appeal has been taken up for final disposal.
(3.) The appellants filed a suit for partition of the suit properties in Item Nos.1 to 11 in 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties by means and bound and to allot 3/5th share.;