JUDGMENT :

Prayer in CS No.1090/2008: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the following judgment and decree:

(a) For partition and separate possession of the Plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the suit property;

(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any person/s claiming through or under them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property to any third parties;

(c) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and suggest for division of the suit property by metes and bounds and allot the 1/3rd share to the plaintiff;

(d) Costs of the suit.

TOS No.56/2013 :Plaint filed under Section 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of Probate.

1. The Suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of the suit property

2. The case of the plaintiff in the suit in brief is as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiff that her father late K.K.Dominic was working as a Assistant Director (Technical), All India Handloom Board, Weavers Service Centre, Chennai, for a considerable period of time. The said K.K.Dominic had married the plaintiff’s mother Mrs.Treasa in the year 1935 and out of the said wed-lock, the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant were born. Even during the subsistence of the marriage, the plaintiff’s father K.K.Dominic developed illicit intimacy with one Theyamma. The relationship with Theyamma had caused considerable bickering in the family which led to the plaintiff’s mother separating herself from Mr.K.K.Dominic and thereafter, she started living in Kerala.

3. The maternal grandfather of the plaintiff Mr.K.D.Kuruvilla was maintaining the plaintiff’s mother and her two daughters, namely, the plaintiff and the third defendant. It is also the case of the plaintiff that one Mrs.Mary Pothen, who was the Principal of S.I.E.T. College for Women, Teynampet, Chennai 18, had also helped the plaintiff’s mother in giving good education to the plaintiff as well as the third defendant. A case for maintenance was also filed by the plaintiff’s mother Mrs.Treasa, which resulted in a direction to Late K.K.Dominic to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month towards maintenance.

4. According to the plaintiff, during the year 1963, the plaintiff’s father K.K.Dominic had purchased the Suit property from and out of his own resources, the Sale Deed, however, was registered in the name of one T.P.Davessy, who happens to be the sister’s husband of the said Theyamma. It is alleged at the time of the purchase the T.P.Davessy was working as a School Teacher and he had no means to buy the property. The house was also named after the Pet Dog of K.K.Dominic. The said K.K.Dominic was living in the said house till his death in the year 1995 along with the said Theyamma.

5. According to the plaintiff, the said Theyamma with evil intention to grab the property obtained the Deed of Settlement from T.P.Davessy on 27.02.1970, Registered as Doc. No.169/1970, settling the entire suit property on herself. Upon coming to know about the said transfer, the mother of the plaintiff Mrs. Treasa, had sent a letter to the Income-tax Authorities complaining that Theyamma is trying to usurp the property. Even in the year 1971, the mother of the plaintiff and the third defendant, Mrs.Treasa had written to the Income-Tax Authorities claiming that the property was purchased by K.K.Dominic out of his own funds in the name of T.P.Davessy. It is also claimed that T.P.Davessy himself had executed an affidavit on 23.12.1963, stating that he is not the owner of the property and the property was purchased in his name out of the monies provided by Theyamma from the funds gifted by her mother. The plaintiff would further allege that Theyamma’s mother Mrs.Annam had written a letter stating that she has no money and the claim made in the affidavit of T.P.Davessy is false.

6. After the d