D BHICKAM CHAND SOWCAR Vs. B DHILIPKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The appeal has arisen in the instant case against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.1419 of 1994 dated 7. 7. 1999. The first defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant. Item No.1 of the suit properties is a lodging house which is run under the name and style of Brindavan Lodge is an ancestral property of Bhikam Chand Sowcar. In a partition effected between Bhikam Chand Sowcar and his brothers, items 1 of the suit property was allotted to him along with some cash and certain other properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 are in management of the lodging house and from out of the surplus earnings available from the lodging house, Bhikam Chand, who is the kartha of the family purchased items 2 to 5 of the suit properties.

(2.) IN fact he constructed a Kalyana Mandapam under the name and style of Santhi Kalyana Mandapam bearing door No.85, Bazaar Road, Mylapore. He had also purchased certain other properties at Aduthurai and. Chidambaram. Disputes also arose between the first defendant and his son, the second defendant herein, which resulted in the first defendant instituting a suit in O.S.No.5857 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the other sharers from interfering with the day- to-day management of the lodging house. The second defendant in turn filed a suit in C.S.No.1356 of 1991 on the file of this Court for partition and separate possession of his 1/8th share in the property bearing door No.234, R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Madras-4 and for mesne profits etc.. IN that suit, by an order dated 28. 7. 1992 made in application No.837 of 1917 this Court appointed an auditor to peruse the various accounts of the lodging business. As per the order passed in Application No. 190 of 1993, this Court appointed a receiver and when the receiver was about to take charge, the first and second defendant entered into a compromise.

(3.) WE feel, the learned single judge has rightly rejected the right of pre-emption claimed by the second defendant. WE do not find any merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, CMP.No.18596 of 1999 is also dismissed.