NATARAJAN Vs. VEDACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff-respondents") filed the suit for partition against Defendant 1, the appellant herein, with the averment that the suit property belonged to one Palani Ammal who in turn had purchased the same from Bonjean Francois as per sale deed dated 23/3/1966. Palani Ammal died intestate on 16/2/1972 leaving behind her husband, four sons and a daughter as her heirs. Her husband died on 9/10/1981. The sons and the daughter inherited the property to the extent of 1/5th share each. The defendants were living together and enjoying the house property as co-owners. Since the iegal heirs of Palani Ammal were in financial difficulties and required funds desperately to perform the marriage of Radhakrishnan, one of the heirs, the legal heirs including the appellant agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) After making the offer the appellant backed out and refused to sell his share but he had no objection to the sale being made by his brothers and the sister of their shares of the suit property. The three brothers and the sister sold the property to the extent of 4/5th share in favour of the plaintiff-respondents by a registered sale deed dated 7/8/1982 for a consideration of Rs. 46,000. 00. Possession of the said property was delivered and the plaintiff-respondents were put in possession to the extent of 4/5th share of the suit property.

(3.) It was further averred that the plaintiff-respondents issued a notice on 7/9/1982 to the appellant requiring him to come forward to effect the partition of the suit property. The appellant in his reply dated 17/9/1982 claimed right of pre-emption in terms of S. 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 (for short "the Act"). The appellant denied the allegations made in the notice.