Partition suit regarding five-member family property. Court passed preliminary decree dividing property by metes and bounds. Settled maintenance for mother-in-law and rental income allocation between defendants.
Preliminary decree passed dividing suit property into five equal shares and allotting one share to each plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3.
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.216 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 14.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S.No.216 of 2019
... Plaintiffs
Vs
1/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the High Court O.S. Rules 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the following decree and judgment :
a] to declare 1/5th share each of the first to fourth plaintiffs in the property bearing Door No.25/14, Mahadevan Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033, more fully described in the schedule hereunder, by passing a preliminary decree to that effect;
b] directing the first defendant to clear the subsisting dues of the second defendant and consequently directing the second defendant to deposit title documents relating to the suit property into this Court;
d] Costs of the suit
For Plaintiffs : Ms.R.V.Rukmani
For defendants : Mr.L.Sriram for M/s.Chennai Law Firm – D1 Mr.Senthil Murugan – D3
D2 – No appearance
2/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed for partition of the suit property into five equal shares and allot one such share to the each of the Plaintiffs and to direct the first defendant to clear the subsisting dues of the second defendant and consequently directing the second defendant to deposit title documents relating to the suit property into this Court and for costs.
The suit property has been purchased by the father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant on 22.01.1992. The father of the plaintiffs and the
3/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
first defendant died intestate on 07.09.2012. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for partition claiming their shares.
The first defendant has filed the written statement not disputing the shares of the plaintiffs. The grievance of the first defendant is that since the plaintiffs have not taken care of their mother, in order to protect the interest of the mother, he is not inclined for partition. This is the only defence taken in the written statement.
been framed for determination in the suit :
the suit schedule property?
second defendant's dues?
4/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
first plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,84,876/- paid by the first plaintiff to the second defendant bank?
that unless the first plaintiff financial security is taken care of, a
decree for partition cannot be passed is tenable?
remaining plaintiffs in filing the above suit?
On the side of the plaintiffs, second plaintiff examined himself as
P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked.
P.W.1 – Mr.A.Venugopal
| S.No. | Date | Description of docum | ents Exhibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 22.01.1972 | Copyof settlement deed | P-1 |
| 2. | 05.02.2011 | Undertaking given by defendant |
the 1st P-2 |
| 3. | 16.11.2017 | Letter sent byIOB Bank | P-3 |
5/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
| S.No. | Date | Description of documents | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4. | 21.12.2018 | Computer generated death certificate of the father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant |
P-4 |
| 5. | 03.11.2018 | Computer generated copy of Metro water receipt |
P-5 |
| 6. | 31.12.2017 | Copy of legal notice sent by the first plaintiff to the first defendant |
P-6 |
| 7. | 22.01.2019 | Copy of the legal notice sent by the plaintiffs to the first defendant |
P-7 |
The suit is one for partition of the suit property left by the father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant and each of them is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit property.
Considering the nature of the lis between the parties, this Court has directed all the parties to be present before this Court. Except the third defendant, the mother of the parties, all are present, since she is aged about 72 years, she could not be present. After interacting with them, it is agreed between the parties to pass a preliminary decree. It is also agreed that the plaintiffs and the first defendant each will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for
6/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
maintenance of the third defendant and that amount shall be deposited by each of them every month in the account of the third defendant, which is already existing in the name of the third defendant. Both the parties are agreeable for the same.
7/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
them in the final decree separately. It is also agreed between the parties that there shall not be any claim in respect of past mesne profits. The the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the rental income of Rs.40000/- and same shall be worked out in the final decree proceedings. Considering the relationship between the parties, there shall be no Order as to costs.
14.12.2023
vrc Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
8/9
C.S.No.216 of 2019
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
C.S.No.216 of 2019
14.12.2023
9/9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property?
Whether the defence put forth by the first defendant that unless the first plaintiff financial security is taken care of, a decree for partition cannot be passed is tenable?
Whether the first plaintiff voluntarily joined the remaining plaintiffs in filing the above suit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Venugopal
S.Padmini
A.Ragunath
A.Gopalakrishnan
Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its Manager
A.Meerabai
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
