Partly allowed

H.Primala, and 2 others v. R.Sakunthala(alias)sakunthala and another

Madras HC12 Oct 2022A/3845/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application by plaintiffs to include seven additional properties in a partition suit. The court allowed inclusion of ancestral properties and self-acquired properties settled in the first defendant's name, dismissing the plea regarding properties purchased in the second defendant's daughter-in-law's name. Movable properties were conditionally included.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed partially; inclusion of ancestral and specifically settled properties permitted; inclusion of daughter-in-law's property dismissed; movable property included conditionally.

H.Primala, and 2 others Vs R.Sakunthala(alias)sakunthala and another — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

A.No.3845 of 2021

¶2

A.No.3845 of 2021 in C.S.No.397 of 2018

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶4

This application has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking to include further six items of properties in the schedule to the plaint.

¶5

Out of the said six items, the first three items have been mentioned in the written statement filed by the 1^st defendant.

¶6

In the written statement, it had been stated that the father had purchased the properties in the names of all his children and subsequently, there had been settlements effected with respect to the properties and therefore, the properties are not available for partition. However, taking advantage of that particular disclosure of further properties being available, present application has been filed by the plaintiffs to include all the properties and seeking partition and separate possession in all of them.

¶7

A counter had been filed, questioning the right to claim partition of the properties now sought to be included.

¶8

Among the properties now sought to be included, the 1^st and 2^nd properties which can be referred as properties at Venkatadri Street, Kosapet, Chennai and New Street property at Nungambakkam, Chennai are the properties which admittedly had been purchased by the father but

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

1/4

¶11

A.No.3845 of 2021

¶12

settled in favour of the 2^nd defendant subsequently. The 2^nd defendant, as on date, claims absolute title to the properties referred as Venkatadri property and New Street property. The 3^rd property which is the Ancestral property at Kamakoor Village in AraniTaluk, Tiruvannamalai District is admittedly available for partition.

¶13

In view of that particular stand, since exclusive and absolute title of the 2^nd defendant will have to be established only during the course of trial, these three properties may be included as further properties to the plaint.

¶14

The other two properties which are now sought to be included are said to have been purchased in the name of Rathika, the wife of the 2^nd defendant. The Sale deed stands in her name. That being the case, the plaintiffs now claims that the said property had been purchased, out of the joint family income. This fact should have been stated in the first instance in the plaint and the plaint cannot be developed after filing of the written statement.

¶15

The properties which had been purchased by the father or the properties which had been settled by the father or by the mother can be included as properties available for partition. But certainly the properties purchased by the daughter-in-law, cannot be so included. The properties stand in her name and she is the absolute owner of the said property and the Title Deed reflects that she is the owner of the said properties.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

2/4

¶18

A.No.3845 of 2021

¶19

Therefore, the said application will have to be necessarily dismissed with respect to item Nos.7 and 8 namely the property standing in the name of Rathika, wife of the 2^nd defendant. The properties are situated at Pavalakara Street at Karunguzhi Town Panchayat and Kevasanallur Village, Kadambathur Panchayat Union.

¶20

The other item of the property which is sought to be included are movable item and the plaintiffs claimed that there are about 200 sovereigns of gold jewels. Unless there are pleadings to substantiate availability of such movables, the plaintiffs cannot get any relief over the said items.

¶21

But at any rate, evidence is permitted to be adduced on the availability of the movables and the said item can be included as available for partition.

¶22

In effect, the application stands partly allowed.

¶23

The plaintiff is permitted to include the property referred as Venkatadri Street property and the New Street Property and Ancestral property at Kamakoor Village, AraniTaluk, Tiruvannamalai District, and also movables as described in the schedule to the judges summons as property No.9. The application stands dismissed with respect to property No.7 and property No.8 as described in the schedule to the Judges Summons.

¶24

ssi

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

3/4

¶27

A.No.3845 of 2021

¶28

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

ssi

A.No.3845 of 2021

12.10.2022

(1/2)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

4/4

H.Primala, and 2 others v. R.Sakunthala(alias)sakunthala and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Primala, and 2 others v. R.Sakunthala(alias)sakunthala and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Vembu Vs Mr.v.G.Ramakrishnan

M/s Ayan Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Director Madhu Kudapa Vs Mr.Ravi Balaji

Take Solutions Limited Vs Madison Pacific Trust Limited

State Industries Promotion Vs M/S.Omsakthi Plastics India

D.Karunakaran Vs No Respondent

G.Sankarabushanam Vs E.Devamani