B R CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2007 passed in Appeal Suit No. 62 of 2006 by the Principal District Court, Madurai, wherein the judgment and decree 30.1.2006 passed in Original Suit No. 1092 of 2001 by the Third Additional Sub Court, Madurai are modified

(2.) The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 1092 of 2001 on the file of the Third Additional Sub Court, Madurai praying to pass a preliminary decree ofpartition in respect of their 2/11 shares in the suit properties and also for directing the defendants 1 to 9 to render accounts, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.

(3.) The conspectus of the averments of the plaint can be stated like thus: The plaintiffs and defendants are the children of B.R. Ramarao and Rajalakshmi. The said Ramarao has started his aluminium business in Door No. 27, TS. No. 2596, Chinthamani Road, Madurai Town prior to 40 years. The plaintiffs being the eldest male members of the family have rendered their assistance in the said business. The said business has been developed due to unstinted efforts of the plaintiffs. The defendants 1 and 2 have also rendered their assistance to the said business. From the income derived from the said business, the marriages of the defendants 4 to 9 have been conducted and they are living in their marital abode comfortably. The said Ramarao, on 27.6.1969, from the income derived from the joint family business, has purchased suit first item in the name of the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants viz., Rajalakshmi and therefore, the suit first item belongs to joint family. The suit second item has been purchased in the names of the defendants 1 to 3 under a registered sale deed dated 6.3.1995 out of the income derived from joint family business and the same also belongs to joint family. The father of the plaintiffs and defendants as well as their mother have passed away. In the suit properties, the plaintiffs are having 2/11 shares, whereas the defendants are having 9/11 shares. Since the defendants are not amenable to the demand of partition made by the plaintiffs, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.