Suit by plaintiff seeking partition of ancestral property and 1/4 share. Court examined settlement deed, held plaintiff entitled to share, and passed preliminary decree for partition.
Preliminary decree passed directing partition of suit property into four shares with 1/4 allotted to plaintiff.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:25.04.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
C.S.No.123 of 2011
S. Ganesan ..Plaintiff -Vs.1. S. Narayana Rao @ Narayanan 2. S. Pandurangan @ Srinivasan 3. S. Lakshmanan ..Defendants
Prayer:- Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code praying for a judgment and decree (i) directing partition of the suit property which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder into 4 equal shares and allocate 1 share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds. (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming under the defendants from in any manner disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of th suit property in any manner and from alienating and encumbering or making material alteration of h is allocated share in respect of the property which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder; (c) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder by metes and bounds and put the plaintiff in possession of his respective shares (d) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.K.Mohanamurali
2
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4 share of the plaintiff.
The facts:
one Gyana Bai, wife of Kuppu Rao. She executed a
registered settlement deed in favour of her grand children
vide document dated 30 August 1967 (Registered document
No.4817 of 1967 on the file of Sub Registrar, North Chennai, Chennai). The settlor died on 30 June 1977. The
plaintiff and defendants took possession of the property
and they are stated to be in joint possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to initiate steps for partition. Since the defendants have not extended their co-operation for an amicable settlement
and partition of the property, the plaintiff has come up with this suit.
and as such they were set ex parte on 8 April 2013.
The Issue:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition?
(ii) Whether the share claimed is correct?
(iii) Relief and cost?
3
Evidence:
marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 in support of his claim for partition.
Analysis:
Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 is the settlement deed, whereby and whereunder, Gyana Bai settled the property in favour of the children of Seshagiri Rao. The plaintiff and defendants are the grand children of the settlor.
clearly proves his entitlement to a share in the property in question. The settlement was made in favour of the children of Seshagiri Rao (Ex.P.1). The plaintiff being one such beneficiary, is entitled to 1/4 share in the property. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for partition. The issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
four and separate allotment of 1/4 share to the plaintiff.
Costs of the suit would come out of the estate.
25.04.2014
//Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2015.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.s/19.01.2015 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition?
Whether the share claimed is correct?
Whether to grant relief and costs?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Narayana Rao
S. Pandurangan
S. Lakshmanan
K.K. Sasidharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
