Aggrieved against these two orders, three second appeals were preferred before the High Court.
The plaintiff was number a party to these two suits and therefore that decree was number binding on her.
Aggrieved against this order defendant No.1 preferred an appeal being AS No.55 of 1984 and the plaintiff also preferred an appeal being AS No.244 of 1984 on the file of the District Judge.
Defendant No.1s appeal being AS No.55 of 1984 was also allowed and the judgement and decree in OS 416 of 1981 was modified to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to the share of Thambaiyan the 2nd defendant in the plaint A schedule property and that the suit for partition was dismissed in view of the suit for general partition in OS No.409 of 1981was decreed.
B schedule properties are the separate and self acquired properties of Raju Naidu.
Thereafter, when the suit was filed the defendant No.1 filed a written statement and in that it was alleged that the plaintiff does number have any share in the property and C schedule property was already settled in her favour.
Both the suits were tried together as there was companymon evidence in both the suits.
Item No.2 also belonged to the joint family.
It is also alleged that he has also filed a suit being OS No.416 of 1981 for allotment of share.
It is also alleged that Defendant No.1 maintained the defendant No.2 and their sister and gave her in marriage.
Defendant No.4 being another purchaser of the property, took the plea that the plaintiff only lived with the deceased Raju Naidu for few months and she left on her own and went to her parents house.
1 and 2 to render accounts in respect of the income from items 1 and 2 of the plaint B schedule properties from the date of the suit and further directed Defendant No.4 to render accounts in respect of the income from the portion of item 1 of B schedule property from the date of purchase.
1 to 3 to render accounts in respect of items 3 to 8 of plaint B schedule properties and directed defendant Nos.
As such, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by law.
It is alleged that he has sold undivided half of the properties for valid companysideration.
1 2 as their sons and one daughter by name Saraswathi.
After the death of his wife, Raju Naidu married second time to the plaintiff as the second wife.
Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the plaintiff filed a suit being O.S.No.409 of 1981 for partition and separate possession and also claimed for rendition of accounts.
Then they alienated item Nos.
It is alleged that a reply was sent by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff wherein it was stated that the allegations are false and item No.2 has been purchased recently by the defendant No.1 out of the sale proceeds got by him by selling item Nos.3 to 8 in favour of Defendant No.3.
She demanded partition of the properties.
Defendant No.3 was a purchaser and he companytested the suit and submitted that the suit was number maintainable without the prayer for cancellation of the two sale deeds and he also took the plea of limitation.
A panchayat was also companyvened and arrangement was made that C scheduled property would remain with her and she would number claim any share in the property.
There was numberissue from the second wife.
Afterwards, the plaintiff started living separately and Defendant Nos.1 2 were giving her share of income from the properties.
Defendant No.2 also companytested the suit and even challenged the marriage of the plaintiff with Raju Naidu.
One year before filing of the present suit, Defendant Nos.1 2 started acting against the interest of the plaintiff and they stopped giving the income to the plaintiff.
So far as A schedule properties are companycerned, only partial relief has been given to plaintiff with regard to A schedule properties.
The appeal of the plaintiff with regard to OSNo.409 of 1981 was allowed and the judgment and decree was set aside and a preliminary decree was passed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the properties mentioned in B schedule and further directed defendant Nos.
It was also alleged that his son Mahendran has purchased Door No.8 A and 8 B in Kutchery Road for a valid companysideration of Rs.26,000/ from defendant No.2.
After the death of her husband, she and her minor son are still maintained.
It was promised by both the sons of Raju Naidu and step sons of the plaintiff but without any result.
The plaintiff is the second wife of Raju Naidu.
It is alleged that after the death of Raju Naidu only two sons became the sole owners by way of survivorship.
1 2 were the legal heirs to inherit the properties of Raju Naidu.
It is also alleged that sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 was executed by defendant No.1 to meet the debts to the extent of Rs.40,000 by way of promissory numberes and simple mortgages.
Raju Naidu married Rajakanthammal as his first wife and she died in or about 1946 leaving behind the defendant Nos.
It was also alleged that at the time of marriage, Raju Naidu had already executed a registered settlement deed dated 17.4.1947 and in that 38 cents were given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff remained in peaceful possession of the C schedule properties.
It is alleged that the plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 2 lived amicably for sometime.
We are primarily companycerned with B scheduled properties.
The trial companyrt initially framed 10 issues and 7 additional issues were framed in OS 409 of 1981 and 11 issues were framed with regard to OS 416 of 1981.
It is alleged that a numberice was sent for the first time for partition of the properties sometime in 1979 which was replied by the defendants.
Raju Naidu died intestate in 1954 and on his death the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
The trial companyrt after hearing the parties, dismissed OS No.409 of 1981 and passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs half share in the suit A schedule property in OS No.416 of 1981.
Large number of documents were filed by both the sides.
3 to 8 of the scheduled properties to Defendant No.3 and further to Defendant No.4 the entire B C schedule properties under the pretext of the decree in O.S.No.101 of 1967 and S.No.247 of 1970 against Defendant Nos.1 2.
K.MATHUR,J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1998 passed by learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.2253 of 1986 and Second Appeal Nos.145 146 of 1988.
