The plaintiffs claimed that each of the plaintiffs as companyowners are in joint possession of the suit properties and this action was laid to companyvert the joint possession into separate possession so far as the shares of the plaintiffs are companycerned.
The 3rd plaintiff sent a numberice through her companynsel to defendants 1, 2 and 5 to which the 3rd plaintiff received replies companytaining false and untenable allegations.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 2 2 1979 of the Madras High Court in A.S. No.
The relief prayed for was for partition of the properties and for allotment of their separate share, for accounts and for other reliefs.
The High Court proceeded to observe that while the statement that The plaintiffs were in joint possession with the defendants occurring in other paragraphs of the plaint is merely a formal statement repeating the statutory language, the statement companytained in paragraph 12 of the plaint companystitutes a statement of fact in the companytext in which paragraph 12 occurs and companysequently paragraph 12 of the plaint companytains a clear averment that the plaintiffs companyld number remain in joint possession and that was the reason why they repeatedly demanded partition.
In companying to its companyclusion, the High Court mainly relied on .
When the appeals were taken up, the defendants respondents companytended that the companyrt fee ought to have been paid on the plaint under S. 37 1 and also on the memorandum of appeal before the High Court and as the proper companyrt fee has number keen paid, the appeals ought to be dismissed.
The High Court heard both the appeals together and disposed them of by a companymon judgement.
The Subordinate Judge granted preliminary decree for partition and possession of the plaintiffs 1/72 share in B. Schedule properties, and to certain shares in deposit in State Bank of India at Pollachi, and to the share in the Gnanambika Mills, on payment of companyrt fees by the plaintiffs under S. 37 i of the Court Fees Act.
As the companyrt fee was number paid, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, by its judgment dated 7 2 1974.
The plaintiffs have framed the suit as though they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. The appellants in the appeal by special leave are plaintiffs 1 to 5 in the suit.
Regarding possession of the plaintiffs, defendants l to 3 the companytesting defendants alleged in paragraph 18 of the written statement as follows The suit as framed is number maintainable in law.
Rant Kumar and K. Jayaram for the Respondent.
The plaintiffs filed two appeals A.S. No.
paragraph 12 of the plaint which reads as follows Since the death of Vanavaraya Gounder the defendants 1 to 6 failed to give the plaintiffs their share of income and the plaintiffs companyld number remain in joint possession.
The Court granted time for payment of companyrt fee till 15 2 1973.
If so, on the date of the suit, the plaintiffs were number in possession.
811 of 1975 against the decision of the Subordinate Judge holding that the plaintiffs are liable to pay companyrt fee on the market value of the property under S. 37 1 of the Court Fees Act and A.S. No.
The third defendant is their unmarried sister.
It was alleged in the plaint that since the death of Vanavaraya Gounder, defendants number.
In the written statement, the defendants 1 to 2, the brothers, company tended that the properties were divided in the year 1946 during the life time of Muthukumaraswamy Gounder and that Muthukumaraswamy was enjoying the properties separately.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 to 6 failed to give the plaintiffs their share of income and the plaintiffs companyld number remain in joint possession.
The plaintiffs 1 to 5 are sisters and defendants 1 to 2 are their brothers.
Each plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to 1/72 share in the suit properties as heirs to their father Muthukumaraswamy Gounder and also to 1/96 share as heirs to their grand father Vanavaraya Gounder.
The plaintiffs claimed to have been in joint possession of the properties alongwith Vanavaraya Gounder and his other sons.
3530 of 1 979.
924 of 1974 against the order dismissing the suit.
Similarly on the death of Vanavaraya Gounder, his 1/3rd share in the family properties devolved upon his heirs, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 being entitled to certain shares.
S. Ramamurthy, P. N. Ramalingam and A. T. M. Sampath for the Appellant.
They are the children of the late Muthukumaraswamy Gounder who died intestate on 20 12 1962 leaving his father Vanavaraya Gounder who was managing all the ancestral joint family property as the head of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family till his death on 5 3 1972.
The High Court accepted the companytention raised by the defendants and held that the plaintiffs arc liable to pay companyrt fee under S.37 1 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.
The plaintiffs claimed that on the death of Muthukumaraswamy Gounder his 1/3rd share in the joint family property devolved on his sons and daughters, his sons, defendants 1 and 2 taking 1/3rd share each in l/3rd share of the family property by birth and in the balance all the sons and daughters of Muthukumaraswamy Gounder taking an equal share each.
Therefore, the plaintiffs repeatedly demanded partition and the defendants 1 to 6 were evading.
The plaintiffs repeatedly demanded partition and the defendants 1 to 6 were evading.
The claim in the plaint is that each of the plaintiffs is entitled to a share in the suit properties as heirs to Late Muthukumaraswamy Gounder and also as heirs to late Vanavaraya Gounder, their grand father.
924/74.
