MYLADI KRISHNAN Vs. NADUKKANDI SURENDRAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the final decree and judgment in a suit for partition. An assignee of the property which is the subject matter of the suit, is the appellant. The plaint schedule property belonged to one Kanaran. Kanaran had three wives. The first defendant is the son of Kanaran in his first wife. The second defendant is the second wife and defendants 3 to 7 are the children born to Kanaran in his second wife. Kanaran contracted a third marriage during the subsistence of his second marriage and the plaintiff and defendants 8 to 12 are the children born to Kanaran in his third wife. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to 1/13 share in the plaint schedule properties held by Kanaran on his death. The suit was, therefore, filed seeking partition of the said right of the plaintiff.

(2.) THERE was an earlier suit namely, O.S. No. 1 to 1968 between the parties and the same was compromised. As per the terms of the compromise, an item of property having an extent of 55 cents was gifted to the plaintiff and defendants 8 to 12 by the remaining sharers. Ext. B11 is the document executed pursuant to the compromise arrived at in the said suit. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of execution of Ext. B11 gift deed. The present suit was filed alleging that as the plaintiff was a minor at the time of execution of Ext. B11 gift deed, the compromise arrived at between the parties in O.S. No. 1 of 1968 and Ext. B11 gift deed are not binding on him.

(3.) PURSUANT to the preliminary decree passed by this Court, an application for passing of a final decree was filed by the plaintiff. In the final decree proceedings, the court below had deputed an Advocate Commissioner to effect partition of the properties in terms of the preliminary decree. The Advocate Commissioner, after valuing the property and the improvements therein, allotted 34 cents of property to the plaintiff from out of the property described in item No. I of the schedule of the properties in the plaint. The court below accepted the division of property made by the Advocate Commissioner and passed a final decree accordingly. The appellant is the assignee of item No. 1 property from defendants 1 to 7. He is aggrieved by the allotment made by the Advocate Commissioner as accepted by the court below. Hence this appeal.