Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Depositions of Defendants Side:

32.D.W.1 (1st Defendant in O.S.No.477/1992), in his evidence has deposed that the 1st Plaintiff-Boopalan was his brother and between him and other brothers partition has taken place on 10.12.1978 and each one got 1/4th share of properties and on that basis, the 1st Plaintiff has been allotted 1/4th share in the properties and his younger brother viz., the 1st Plaintiff-Boopalan, because of his heavy loan, asked him to lend money and accordingly, he received a sum of Rs.1,300/- as loan from him and also that his brother obtained a loan of Rs.300/- from Sorupan and later stated in the evidence that he received a sum of Rs.400/- as loan and also that his brother-Boopalan received a sum of Rs.500/- as loan from Katpadi Pappa.

35.D.W.1 (in his cross examination) has deposed that his brother's wife, 2nd Plaintiff-Brinda at the time of execution of sale agreement, she was not in station and his brother Boopalan and his wife, 2nd Plaintiff orally sold the suit property to him and he does not know that because of the trouble between 1st Plaintiff-Boopalan and his wife, they live separately and 10 years later of the oral sale, the dispute has been raised in respect of the said sale and he complained about Ex.B.1-Agreement before the Panchayat but has not given complaint against his brother before the Police Station and that he had not obtained a cash receipt for paying the amount to Pappa and Sorupan and after settling the loan amount to Sorupan and Pappa, availed by his brother-Boopalan on the same day Ex.B.1-Agreement was written and there is no record to show that Plaintiff-Boopalan should pay Rs.1,300/-.

37.D.W.3, in his evidence, has stated that he knows to put his signature but does not know how to read and write. Further, he does not know who has cultivated the suit lands and Ex.B.1-Agreement has been written 15 years ago and in Ex.B.1-Agreement, he has affixed his signature and that Boopalan is not alive.

38.D.W.3, (in his cross examination), has deposed that Ex.B.1-Agreement has been brought by Venkatesan, 1st Defendant (Subramanian) and Subramanian asked him to put his signature and therefore, he has affixed his signature and at that time, the 1st Plaintiff-Boopalan has not come and he does not know whether the signature of 1st Plaintiff has been there and in his presence, the 1st Plaintiff-Boopalan has not affixed his signature.

The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Question of Law No.1 in S.A.No.1641/2003:

77.The Appellants (Legal Representatives of the deceased Plaintiff  Boopalan) submits that in between deceased Boopalan and the deceased 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, one Venkatesan and Shanmugam as brothers, they constituted members of the Hindu joint family and divided their joint family properties as per Family Arrangement dated 10.12.1978 and in the said partition, the plaint schedule properties (in O.S.No.477 of 1992) and other properties were allotted to the deceased 1st Plaintiff (Boopalan) and that the deceased 1st Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in his own right and title. The 1st Plaintiff (since deceased), during his life time, filed a suit praying for the relief of declaration of title in regard to the suit properties and consequent upon his death, the Appellants have been brought on record as his Legal Representatives. They also prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants etc. from in any manner interfering with the 1st Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.