(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.137 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirrappalli, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2012 made in the said suit, have filed this appeal.
(2.) O.S.No.137 of 2009 had been filed by three sisters, namely, M.Regina Celine, M.Kamseeli and L.M.Josephine Mary. They were all daughters of late Michaelsamy and late Kitheri Ammal. Their mother Kitheri Ammal died on 13.10.1978. In 1979, their father Michaelsamy married the first defendant Michael Ammal and through them, the second defendant M.Martin was born. The plaintiffs and the defendants are Roman Catholics and the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925, apply to them. It had been stated that the plaintiff's father Michael Samy died on 01.02.1991. They stated that there was a Will, which was acknowledged by the first defendant on 10.03.1991, in front of two witnesses. It is seen from the date that the Will is after the date of death of Michael Samy. It had been stated that there was an earlier Will, which was registered on 13.05.1981.
(3.) According to the Will dated 10.03.1991, the property, which is subject matter of litigation, should be sold and the money is to be distributed according to the said Will. The property is situated in Ponmalaipatti Village, Varaganeri Punja S.F.No.71/BB4F, measuring out of 36 cents, 5 cents in Re-Survey No.73/B1A, out of 61 cents, 5 cents in Ponmalai Panchayat Board. The plaintiffs stated that the property was purchased jointly by their father Michael Samy and their mother Kitheri Ammal in the year 1971. Since, the property was the property of their parents, the plaintiffs claimed one half of the share of their mother's share and the share from their father. They, therefore, claimed 3/4th share in the suit property. They further stated that 1/6th share should go to the first defendant and 1/12th share should go to the second defendant. It had been stated that the plaintiffs had married and are residing with their husbands. The first and second defendants were trying to alienate their property. A legal notice dated 28.08.2008 was issued seeking partition, for which the defendants issued a reply notice. Claiming partition and seperate possession of 3/4th share according to the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the suit had been filed for partition and seperate possession and for costs.