Using the above advance, she has purchased a property, namely 'B' schedule property in the name of said Mohan and the plaintiff. As the sale agreement entered into by the first defendant could not be finalised, the plaintiff settled the advance amount to the vendor. To support the contention that the plaintiff settled the advance to the so called vendor, no evidence, whatsoever is on recored. Further the alleged payment towards the purchase of the property in some others name and claiming a right over the property purchased in some others name is not permissible in law. The contention of the plaintiff is nothing but binami in nature. Such contention also cannot be sustainable in law. Admittedly, the 'B' schedule property has been purchased in the name of plaintiff's brother one Mohan and this fact has been admitted by her. The said Mohan also died as a bachelor. The said Mohan died in the year 2001 as seen in Ex.P.9 death certificate. It is also admitted by both sides that he died as a bachelor. Therefore, after his death, the first defendant being the mother, is his class – I legal heir. The 'B' schedule property will go only to the mother and not to other persons. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for a partition in respect of the 'B' schedule property also has to fail. Hence, the plaintiff is also not entitled to any mesne profits. As far as the 'C' schedule property is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties as to the share. At the most the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for 1/3 share in respect of the 'C' schedule property alone.
