BALAN Vs. MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.S.A.No.1152 of 2014 has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.25/2012 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Irinjalakkuda which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1416 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakkuda.

(2.) Plaintiff is the appellant. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court.) Suit is one for partition and for execution of relinquishment deeds. Plaintiff, first defendant and defendants 5 to 7 are the children of late Peramangalam Raman. Parties are Hindus governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Defendants 2 to 4 are the widow and children of the late son of Raman by name Madhavan. Parents of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 4 are no more. Father obtained 13 cents of property in Kalloor Village by virtue of partition deed No.1122 M.E and sale deed of 1969 of Nellai Sub Registry Office. Father died intestate and after his death, the property devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff is residing with family in the plaint schedule property and his siblings are residing away in independent homes and matrimonial homes. Plaint schedule property was orally partitioned among the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff on 28/12/2005 as per which the siblings of the plaintiff agreed to relinquish their right over the property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.9,000.00 per cent and as per which the plaintiff has to pay the amount on or before 28/6/2006. They also agreed to execute relinquishment deeds in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, a document was also executed incorporating the terms and conditions in between the parties. However, defendants 5 to 7 alone executed the release deeds after receiving consideration from the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 4 did not execute the deed till date. Hence the suit.

(3.) First defendant alone contested the suit and filed written statement denying the oral partition. The agreement to execute the relinquishment deed is also denied. It is stated in the written statement that the plaint schedule property is worth several lakhs and the attempt of the plaintiff is to grab the plaint schedule property. After the death of father, plaintiff and defendants have equal rights over the scheduled property. Plaintiff is residing in the tharavadu house and the defendants were not allowed to enter into the tharavadu property. He has been taking yield and usufructus from the plaint schedule property for the past 30 years. On 28/12/2005, when the defendant visited the property, plaintiff and his family members manhandled him. Though police complaint was preferred, no action was taken. Hence counter claim has been filed claiming 1/6 share over the scheduled property with future profits.