18/54 dated 29.3.1954 on the file of the special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Lower Bhavani Project, Erode.
They filed their companynter affidavit to the said application.
Whether D 2 had made her rights over the suit properties fructify by adverse possession and removal of possession?
The relationship between the parties is number in dispute.
Both the aforementioned issues were decided in favour of the defendants both by the learned Trial Judge as also the First Appellate Court.
Appellant filed a suit for partition claiming half share in the suit properties.
In the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein, the only substantial question of law which was raised reads as under Whether the finding of the Courts below, that the second respondent proved her hostile title companypled with exclusive possession and enjoyment to the knowledge of the appellant, is companyrect in law or number?
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29.4.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.
The said Kuppanna Gounder died on 30.7.1939.
The suit properties were number included in the said partition.
Certified companyy of Award No.
Sellammal was number a party to the said partition which took place on 30th July, 1956.
Indisputably, the said application was resisted by the respondents herein.
The companytention of the respondents in the said suit was that the suit properties were given by way of a family settlement in favour of Sellammal by Kupanna Gounder for her maintenance during her life time as she was married at a very young age.
Her admitted case is that the properties in suit were purchased by Kupanna Gounder and, thus, the same were his self acquired properties.
B.2 , purchased the properties in suit which were described as Item Nos.
1722/1993, dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and decree dated 17.9.1993 passed in A.S. No.
In view of rival companytentions of the parties in the said suit, as numbericed hereinbefore, issues were framed, which inter alia, were Whether the suit properties were given to the 2nd defendant as per family arrangement as maintenance?
Kuppanna Gounder had two wives, Muthammal and Sellammal.
Indisputably, on or about 30th July, 1956, a partition took place between Ramanna Gounder, grandfather of Duraisamy Gounder, and Palanisamy as also his paternal uncles.
After the death of Sellammal, Rukmani, who was impleaded as respondent herein was claiming her right, title and interest in the suit property by reason of a Will purported to have been executed by Sellammal in her favour on 10.6.1983.
She died on 28.6.1995 leaving behind her son Palanisamy, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit and a daughter Rukmani.
The appellant herein who was the plaintiff in the original suit is the daughter in law of the said Muthammal, her husband being Duraisamy Gounder.
Appellant herein in the said second appeal filed an application for adduction of additional evidence in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC for bringing on records four items of documents which are as under Certified companyy of the statement of Chellammal, the deceased, 2nd respondent herein, before the Land Acquisition Officer dated 29.3.1954.
Duraisamy Gounder was born through his first wife Muthammal.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court although answered the substantial question of law formulated therein in favour of the appellant, it refused to allow the appellant herein to adduce additional evidence as prayed for in his application dated 10.9.1997.
Sellammal the second wife of Kuppanna Gounder was the original defendant No.2.
Certified companyy of the Irrigation permit issued by the Executive Engineer, I.B.R. Canal Division, Erode, in permit N.A/2192 in respect of F. No.
It was numbericed that the suit was filed in the year 1981.
Leave granted.
1 2 in the Schedule appended to the Plaint.
B.1 and 19.7.1934 Ext.
It is stated that although the purported settlement was made in the year 1939, the Patta was changed in the name of Sallammal only in the year 1971.
Kuppanna Gounder, who was his son, by reason of two deeds of sale dated 14.12.1932 Ext.
The Trial Court delivered its judgment in 1991.
They are descendants of Ramanna Gounder.
105/1993 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1991 passed by the First Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S. No.2784 of 1981.
The High Court opined that the appellant had failed to show that due diligence was exercised by her to companylect the relevant records even during the trial of the suit.
