Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Secondly, they denied the claim that the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of the deceased father Sukumaran. According to them, she had wedded one Nadarajan and thereafter she started living with their father Sukumaran, while  her original husband was living. But, they admitted that they are the children born out of the said relationship between Sukumaran and Plaintiff. Thirdly, they contended that mother of Sukumaran was also living at the time of his death and the suit was instituted without impleading all the legal heirs of the Sukumaran and the suit is bad by non joinder of necessary parties. They further contended that the old house in the plaint schedule property had been renovated using Rs.40,765/- sent by the second defendant to the plaintiff from abroad during the year 1979-1983, so also he had constructed a compound wall and a gate expending Rs.6,200/-. As regards the new building, according to them, the two storied new building expending Rs.4,38,000/- was constructed by the second defendant alone with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and other defendants. Lastly, they contended that there exists 44 cents of land in joint possession, apart from the plaint schedule property and the suit was instituted excluding the said property and thereby the suit itself is bad for partial partition. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.