SURESH BABU Vs. VALSALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in a suit for partition. The court below passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property. The defendant has come up in appeal challenging the decree.

(2.) The first plaintiff is the wife of late Subrahmanian. The second and the third plaintiffs and the defendant are his children. The plaint schedule property belonged to late Subrahmanian. One Kumaran had got assignment of undivided right in the property. The plaintiffs and the defendant and Kumaran executed and registered Ext.A1 partition deed in the year 2001. As per that partition deed, the plaint schedule property was set apart to the common share of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs demanded partition of that property. The defendant rejected their demand. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and allotment of three such shares to them jointly.

(3.) The defendant resisted the claim for partition of the plaint schedule property mainly on two grounds. He pleaded that he had given 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments each for the marriage of the second and the third plaintiffs and he had met the expenses in connection with their marriage. He also pleaded that he had met the expenses of the education of the second plaintiff. He pleaded that at the time of the marriage of the second and the third plaintiffs, they had orally relinquished their right in the plaint schedule property. He further contended that it was agreed by the parties that the first plaintiff would have only the right to reside in the house in the property and to take the income from it. The defendant also raised another plea that the suit is bad for partial partition.