The plaintiff's mother became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the Ryotwari Patta granted in her name under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even the limited estate of women got enlarged and became absolute estate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 13.08.2001 in O.S.No.258 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur and to allow this Appeal.)

A. The Appeal Suit:

1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, dated 13.08.2001 in O.S.No.258 of 1996, in and by which, the suit filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Original Suit itself.

B. The Suit:

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares and allotted one such share to the plaintiff and for separate possession, mean profits and for permanent injunction restraining the seventh defendant or his men from interfering with the possession and for costs.

C. The Pleadings:

3. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 are brothers and they are the sons born to one Made Gowdu and Siddamma. Yet another daughter, by name Putta Rajamma died ten years prior to the filing of the suit and the fifth defendant is her son and the sixth defendant is her husband. The seventh defendant in the suit, namely Y.Venugopal was the purchaser of the part of the suit property from the plaintiff's mother Siddamma. The eighth defendant in the suit, Putta Madhamma, is the wife of the second defendant in the suit, in whose favour, part of the suit property was bequeathed by the plaintiff's mother Siddamma.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were purchased by the plaintiff's father Made Gowdu, by a registered sale deed, dated 16.03.1948. While so, in the year 1959, when third parties attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, a suit was filed in O.S.No.426 of 1959, in which, the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff, the first and the second defendants were parties. By a decree, dated 29.09.1962, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise, as per which, the present suit properties, which were item Nos.8 and 9 in the said suit, were declared to be that of the plaintiff and the first defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff's father and mother had again filed a second suit in O.S.No.109 of 1965 claiming maintenance and since the above said properties were given to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 and life estate was directed to be there for the plaintiff's parents, they claimed the monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.30/- per month or in the alternative, to declare their right to be in possession of the present suit properties till their life time. The plaintiff's father died during the pendency of the said suit in June, 1966 and thereafter, the said suit was not prosecuted and the plaintiff's mother was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff's mother Siddamma died on 01.08.1994. Before her death, without any right whatsoever, she sold the item No.1 of the suit property to the seventh defendant by a registered sale deed, dated 25.06.1990. The said sale is sham and nominal as she did not have any right whatsoever. Similarly, the plaintiff's mother had executed a registered Will, dated 27.06.1994 in respect of the item No.2 of the suit property in favour of eighth defendant, namely the wife of the second defendant and she had no such right to execute the said will. As a matter of fact, even on 13.08.1990, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants. Since the seventh defendant is attempting to interfere with the properties which continued to be in the joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

5. The first defendant remained exparte in the suit. The second defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. As per the second defendant the relationship between the parties is admitted. It is contended that the properties are the self-