Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: TIRUVANNAMALAI in Kamalakannan vs Kasthuri on 24 June, 2013Matching Fragments
2. On an appeal preferred in A.S.No.16/2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the learned lower appellate judge confirmed the decree in respect of maintenance, but modified the decree of the lower court in respect of the prayer for partition holding that the second respondent/second plaintiff was entitled to 8/42 share and the first respondent/first plaintiff was entitled to 1/42 share in the suit properties except items 3, 6, 7, 14, 19 and 27. As against the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in accordance with their ranks in the suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in the appeal shall also be indicated.
3. The first defendant Rajagopal had married one Pachaiammal and through her he got one son and four daughters. They are: 1) Kamalakannan @ Setu (2nd Defendant), 2) Apeetha (5th appellant not a party in the suit), 3) Tamil Selvi (3rd defendant), Selvi (4th defendant) and Anjala (5th defendant). Pachaiammal is no more. Contending that after the death of Pachaiammal, the first defendant married Kasthuri/the first plaintiff on 02.09.1992 in Annamalayar Temple, Tiruvannamalai, which was registered with Receipt No.8978 in the register maintained in Sri Arulmigu Arunachalaeswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai; that out of the said wedlock, the second plaintiff Pannerselvam was born on 18.08.1996 at Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai; that the said birth was registered in Tiruvannamalai Municipality with Registration No.1874/1996 on 19.08.1996; that till December 1998 they lived along with the first defendant; that thereafter due to the ill treatment caused by the first defendant, who had become addicted to drinks and also by his mother, the plaintiffs had to leave the first defendant and live in the house of the first plaintiffs mother; that the first defendant, who inherited 2.00 acres of land from his father Chinnapaiya Gounder, who died 53 years prior to the filing of the suit, with no other source of income purchased 13.00 acres of land and put up a terraced house after demolishing a thatched house out of the income derived from the ancestral property inherited from his father and that therefore all the properties inherited by the first defendant from his father and the properties purchased by the first defendant were the joint family properties, in which the second plaintiff was entitled to a share by birth, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for the relief of partition. In line with their contention that Apeetha, the first daughter of the first defendant was married 12 years prior to the filing of the suit (prior to the date from which amendment to Hindu Succession Act was brought by Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990) and other daughters of first defendant got married subsequently, they had contended that the second plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 were entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit properties. Based on the averment that the first defendant failed and neglected to maintain the first plaintiff, the suit was filed also for a decree against the first defendant and for a direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and for creation of charge over the share of the first defendant in the suit properties. Relief of partition directing separation of the 2nd plaintiffs 1/6th share from the rest was also sought for along with a prayer for a direction to render true and correct account for the second plaintiffs share of the income derived from the suit properties.
7. As against the said judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.12.2002, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.16/2003 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The learned lower appellate judge confirmed the decree in respect of maintenance, but modified the decree of the lower court in respect of the prayer for partition holding the second respondent/second plaintiff was entitled to 8/42 share and the first respondent/first plaintiff was entitled to 1/42 share in the suit properties except items 3, 6, 7, 14, 19 and 27. As against the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal.
asr To
1. The District Judge Tiruvannamalai
2. The Additional Subordinate Judge Tiruvannamalai