This judgment disposed of a partition suit filed by three plaintiffs against a defendant for division of ancestral property. The court found the plaintiffs' evidence sufficient and passed a preliminary decree granting them a 1/4th undivided share each.
Preliminary decree passed partitioning property into four equal shares, allotting 1/4th to each 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.
C.S.No.593 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.03.2022
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.S.No.593 of 2018
1.G.Swaminath Rao 2.G.Heera Rao 3.G.Mahadeo Naig ...Plaintiffs Vs. G.Gangaprasad Rao .... Defendant
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC seeking for the following reliefs:
(i). For partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and allot 1/4th share to each plaintiff by metes and bounds along with separate possession.
(ii). For cost of the suit.
For plaintiffs : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran For defendant : Mr.M.K.Viswanath
1/7
C.S.No.593 of 2018
J UDGEMENT
This suit has been filed for partition of the suit schedule property into
four equal shares and to allot 1/4th share to each of the plaintiffs by metes and bounds along with separate possession.
the Late Gnanasagar Rao in the name of his second wife Mrs. Annaji Shyamala Gnanasagar Rao along with her sister Mrs. Indira alias Indra Bai,
the wife of Govinda Rao under a Sale Deed registered as Document
2/7
C.S.No.593 of 2018
No.3208/1963 from one Mrs.Amaravathy Ammal and others. Thereafter, they sold a portion of the land property measuring to an extent of 3600 Sq.ft. comprised in Plot No.37 and Plot No.36(part) to Mrs.D.Anusuya W/o. D.Gopalakrishnan under a Sale Deed registered as Document No.3868/1973. Subsequently, the said Mrs. Indira alias Indra Bai, discharged her right and title over the remaining land in favour of her sister Mrs. Annaji Shyamala Gnanasagar Rao through a Release Deed registered as Document No.3870/1973 dated 18.10.1973 at SRO, Kodambakkam. From then onwards, the suit schedule property stood in the name of Mrs. Annaji Shyamala Gnanasagar Rao and she is in possession of the same.
3/7
C.S.No.593 of 2018
schedule property became a common property of the plaintiffs and the defendant and they are equally entitled to the suit property i.e. each party is entitled to 1/4th undivided share. The plaintiffs and the defendant are coowners of the suit schedule property and have been in joint constructive possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the defendant was approached by the plaintiffs asking for partition of the suit schedule property. But the defendant refused to consider the same. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 29.04.2017 was sent to the defendant seeking partition of the said property for which, the defendant replied on 20.05.2017 in a very frivolous terms ignoring the rightful claim of the plaintiffs on the suit property. Therefore, the present suit has been filed seeking for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and to allot 1/4th share to each of the plaintiffs by metes and bounds along with separate possession.
that the plaintiffs are willing to give 1/4th share in the suit schedule property to the defendant for which, the learned Counsel for the defendant would submit that the said offer is under consideration and he would report
4/7
C.S.No.593 of 2018
before this Court about the acceptability of the said offer on the next hearing. Therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed on 13.12.2021. when the matter was came up for hearing on 13.12.2021, there was no representation for the defendant and no written statement had been filed till that date. Since the suit is for partition and it is of the year 2018 and in order to substantiate the evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendant was set ex-parte by order dated 13.12.2021 and the matter was referred to the Master for recording evidence. Accordingly, the ex-parte evidence was recorded by the Master.
and he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and to substantiate his claim, the following documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8.
| Exhibits | Nature of the documents |
|---|---|
| P1 | The certified copy of Sale Deed in Doc. No.3868/1973 dated 18.10.1973 |
| P2 | The certified copy of Release Deed in Doc.No.3870/1973 dated 18.10.1973 |
| P3 | The print out copy of Death Certificate of Gnanasagar Rao dated 27.12.2016. Affidavit filed under Section 65B. |
5/7
C.S.No.593 of 2018
| Exhibits | Nature of the documents |
|---|---|
| P4 | The Original Legal Heirship Certificate of Gnanasagar Roa dated 20.04.2017 |
| P5 | The certified copy of Settlement Deed in Doc.No.3618 of 2006 dated 11.09.2006 |
| P6 | The print out copy of Death Certificate of Annaji Shyamala Rao dated 27.12.2016. Affidavit filed under Section 65B. |
| P7 | The Photocopy of reply notice sent by the defendant dated 20.05.2017 |
| P8 | The Photocopy of Legal Notice dated 29.04.2017 |
perused the oral and documentary evidence.
plaint as well as the Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiffs, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have proved their claim. Therefore, the preliminary decree is passed as prayed for.
03.03.2022
ksa-2
6/7
C.S.No.593 of 2018
P.VELMURUGAN,J. Ksa-2
C.S.No.593 of 2018
03.03.2022
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs have proved their claim to partition the suit schedule property into four equal shares and allot 1/4th share to each.
Whether the defendant must be set ex-parte due to non-appearance and failure to file written statement.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Swaminath Rao
G.Heera Rao
G.Mahadeo Naig
G.Gangaprasad Rao
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
