The three plaintiffs, Ramesh, Ganesh and Sivalingam are the sons of the defendant number 15.
The defendants also companytended that the suit was fit to be dismissed as the defendant number 1 and the defendant number 15 had finally parti tioned the properties in 1975, and numberquestion of a further partition arises.
Subramanian, the younger son of the testatrix, who has been in the present suit examined as the second witness on behalf of the plaintiffs, has one son Arunachalam, de fendant number 15.
They claim that they being the only grand sons of Subramanian have half share in the properties, the remaining half going to the grand sons of the defendant number 1, namely, defendants number 5 to 14.
The maintainability of the suit was also challenged on the ground of minority of the plaintiffs as also on the basis of the rule against perpetuity.
The defend ant No.
However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs were still minor.
So far the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants number 5 to 14 are companycerned, agreeing with the defence case, the companyrt held that the parties would take the properties as per capita.
The trial companyrt rejected the plea based on the rule against perpetuity.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.1987 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
Rathinammal, who after executing a registered will died in 1942.
plaintiffs witness number 2 PW 2 , were to remain in possession of the properties without any power of alienation and had to pay the taxes and companyduct regularly certain religious festivals and thereafter their sons were to manage the properties on similar terms.
defend ant number 1, and Subramanian.
Having regard to the interest of the defendant number 1, his brother Subramanian and Arunachalam, defendant number 15, the companyrt held that the alleged partition of 1975 was illegal and number binding on the plaintiffs.
On behalf of the defendants it is pleaded that the suit properties have to be divided amongst all the 13 great grand sons of the testatrix in equal shares.
The property in suit belonged to Smt.
The main dispute in the suit is about the share which the plaintiffs are entitled to, under the terms of the will.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Accord ing to the terms of the will, her two sons Natesan.
The will further provides that after their attaining majority the great grand sons, i.e., the sons sons sons of the testatrix will get the proper ties as absolute owners.
1 got four sons and ten sons sons.
86 of 1982.
2231 of 1988.
Venkataramani for the Appellants.
Balakrishnan and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decree passed by the High Court in favour of the plaintiff respondents in a suit for partition.
