MAHESWARI Vs. N. RAMAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 26/7/2013, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem in O.S.No.56 of 2010, in and by which, the suit for partition and declaration declaring that the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 as null and void, was dismissed by the Trial Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant/Raman Pillai, is the father of the first plaintiff/Maheswari and the fourth defendant/Kumar. He was first married to one Sivagamiammal and through his first marriage, the second defendant/Bakkiyalakshmi and the third defendant/Tamilselvi were born. Thereafter, he got married to the second plaintiff/Anandayee and through the second defendant, the first plaintiff/Maheswari and the fourth defendant/Kumar were born. The suit properties were the ancestral properties in the hands of the first defendant/Raman Pillai. Some items of the suit properties were purchased by the first defendant/Raman Pillai, out of the income from the said joint family nucleus. The said Raman Pillai had illegally settled majority of the items in the suit properties in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by a settlement deed dtd. 2/7/2009, except in respect of one item of the suit properties. Therefore, the said settlement deed, which is executed without any valid right, title or interest whatsoever is liable to be declared as null and void and the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/6 shares in the suit properties.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. It is the case of the defendants that the first defendant is the father and one Kamala @ Sivagami, who died, was the mother of the defendants 2 and 3. As far as the second plaintiff/Anandayee is concerned, she was married only to Velu Asari and it was through him only, the fourth defendant/Kumar and the first plaintiff/Maheswari were born, and therefore, the genealogy as in the plaint, was denied. As stated in paragraph No.6 of the written statement, as far as the self-acquired properties are concerned, the defendant has executed a settlement deed, and for the rest of the properties, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right as they are not members of the joint family and therefore, both the plaintiffs cannot claim 1/6th share each.