VENKATARAMAN Vs. RADHABAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4 of 1991 dated 20.9.1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) The averments in the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal run as follows:-

(3.) The defendant in his written statement would contend as follows:- The defendant states that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant states that the property in question are the joint family properties of the defendant, his father Rangasamy Reddiar and his brother Madhavan, who died at the age of three. After the death of the father, the defendant became the absolute owner of the entire properties as sole Co-parcenor. The defendant states that the plaintiff has married to one P.R.Kothandaraman and through him, she has one daughter. After the birth of her child, she came to father's house and cultivated the illicit intimacy with one Natarajan, who was living in the opposite to the defendant's house. In view of the said illicit intimacy, the defendant has severed all connections with the plaintiff. (b) The defendant states that his father Rangasamy Reddiar was not the absolute owner of the properties in question. The purchase of the suit properties was made from and out of the income of the joint family properties and joint family assets. The defendant denied the allegations that the house was constructed by Rangasamy Reddiar and there has been no ancestral properties inherited by Rangasamy Reddiar. The said Rangasamy Reddiar sold some of the ancestral lands to third party and purchased the suit properties. The defendant further denied the allegations that his father executed a last Will and appointed an executor, namely, Pal Reddiar and the original Will is with the defendant. The defendant states that the defendant's father had given the properties to the defendant and not to the plaintiff. The defendant further states that no loan was obtained by the plaintiff to install pumpset. The defendant denied the allegations that he is sharing the masool with the plaintiff. The defendant states that the allegations that after the death of the the plaintiff's father, mother, Madhavan, and Nagammal, step mother, who died issueless, the plaintiff and the defendant became the joint owners of the suit properties as an heir to deceased Rangasamy Reddiar and thus, the plaintiff and the defendant are the jont and constructive possession of the suit properties are all false. The defendant denied the statement of the plaintiff that 30 sovereign of jewels pledged by Ranganayaki Ammal were redeemed by the defendant. The defendant states that he is not in possession of any jewels and even otherwise, the plaintiff is not entitled to any half share over the alleged jewels. The defendant also denied the statement made in the plaint that the plaintiff approached him for amicable settlement. The defendant states that he sent a suitable reply for the lawyer's notice sent by the plaintiff and received the acknowledgement for the same. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.