ANNAKODI Vs. A.NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant filed a suit for partition claiming for 1/3 share in the suit property on the ground that the suit property along with other properties originally belonged to one Perianna gounder and that his five sons under registered Partition Deed dtd. 4/9/1958, marked as EX.A1, divided the property among themselves and one Arumuga gounder was allotted "E" Schedule property. The further case of the appellant is that the said Arumuga gounder is none other than the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 who are the brother and sister of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the said Arumuga gounder died intestate on 18/1/2008 leaving behind the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants. The appellant sought for the division of the property and for allotment of her share in the property. However, the 1st defendant did not agree to such a partition and left with no other option, the appellant proceeded to file the suit seeking for the relief of partition.

(2.) The 1st defendant who is the brother of the appellant filed a written statement to the effect that the appellant had married in the year 1977 itself and the suit property was jointly enjoyed by the 1st defendant and his father and there was a notional partition that took place between the 1st defendant and his father and each became entitled to half share in the suit property. The further case of the 1st defendant is that his father executed a registered Settlement Deed dtd. 13/2/2006, marked as Ex.B1 and settled his half share in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has therefore, claimed an absolute right over the suit property and has taken a stand that the appellant is not entitled for any share in the suit property.

(3.) Both the Courts below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that there was a notional partition between the 1st defendant and his father and thereby, half share in the property absolutely vested with the father of the 1st defendant and this was settled in favour of the 1st defendant. As a result, both the Courts held that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and the appellant is not entitled for any share in the property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.