R.Jayasimha Babu, J.: The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit in C.S. No.1685 of 1994 which suit was filed by them, each one of the three plaintiffs claiming 1/11th share in the self acquired properties of their father late Ramasamy Naicker who died in the age of 73 in August, 1973, as also in the properties acquired by his sons subsequent to the death of their father. Defendants are four of their brothers, the son of the deceased brother and three sisters who had been married prior to the death of their father. The marriage of the three plaintiffs took place in the year 1974 after the demise of their father. The plaintiffs have in their plaint contended that their father was not possessed of any ancestral property and the partition that had been entered into among the father and his five sons under a registered partition deed dated 2.9.1958 was only sham and was meant to get over the Land Ceiling Legislation. They have also contended that gift made to them by their father under gift deed dated 14.1.1970 at a time when they were minors had not been accepted by them after they attained majority. It is also their further case that the Will of their father dated 18.2.1973 cannot be genuine, as according to them, their father was ill and would not have excluded the daughters from the disposition of the property.

2. All the defendants in the suit as also two of the three plaintiffs reside outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Leave was therefore sought to institute the suit in this Court against those defendants.

3. It was asserted at paragraph 14 of the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose at Madras where three of the 185 properties listed in the plaint schedule are situated. It was also asserted that the cause of action arose when the plaintiffs demanded their share in the year 1993 and caused a notice to be issued in the year 1994. It was averred in the plaint that they have no knowledge of the exact extent of the properties possessed by late Ramasamy Naicker and that they are not in possession of any records from which they can ascertain the details of the assets. It was their case that immediately after their marriage they went to their husbands houses and were only visiting their brothers at Aruppukottai which is situated several hundred kilometres away from the city of Madras.

4. All the properties listed in the plaint schedule except items 169, 170 and 171 are situated outside Madras, most of the properties being in Aruppukottai. The three properties mentioned in Sl.No.169, 170 and 171 are properties in the city of Madras which properties, as seen from the documents produced by the defendants, had been acquired by two of the brothers and by the widow and sons of the deceased brother long after the demise of their father. The properties acquired are not whole of the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule but a fractional interest in the land and construction was put up on those lands. Under the sale deed dated 25.11.1991 one of the defendants Varadarajan purchased 887/15000 shares in a plot of two grounds and 2000 sq.ft. Under a sale deed of 24th February, 1994 the same Varadarajan also brought 1456/10077 shares in a plot measuring two grounds and 1765 sq.ft. as also flat on the third floor of the building put up thereon. Under several sale deeds dated 5.4.1991 the widow and children of the deceased brother Subbaraj purchased about 93/1500th share in large plot in Madras City. The consideration paid for the purchase made by Varadarajan was about Rs.6,23,900 and for the purchase made by the family of late Subbaraj the consideration was about Rs.5,50,000.

5. The plaintiff obtained leave ex parte to file a suit on 21.4.1994. After the defendants entered appearance and before they filed their written statement they applied to the Court to revoke the leave by applications No.753, 786 and 970 of 1997. Those applications having been allowed and leave granted having been revoked, the plaintiffs have come up in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document