SUDHA MANJARI Vs. C.LATHA JANARDHANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition against the defendants.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, in brief, reads as follows: - The suit property was purchased, in the name of the plaintiff, defendants and their mother one Ramani, under a registered Sale Deed dated 21.01.1988 out of the equal contribution of the plaintiff, defendants and their mother R.Ramani. The first defendant is the elder sister and the 2nd defendant is the younger sister of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's father J. Rangadoss Reddy died as early as on 13.06.1985. The plaintiff and her mother were in occupation of a portion in the ground floor of the suit property along with the second defendant. The first defendant, who was married on 22.09.1980, is residing in the first floor with her family right from the date of purchase of the suit property. The remaining portions in the ground floor and out house were let out and the rent amount was collected by their mother and she only maintained the family including the first defendant's family. Unfortunately, misunderstanding arose between the first defendant and her mother , which forced the mother and the plaintiff to live outside the suit property from June 1988. Ever since, the ground floor portion has been under lock and key and the first defendant also successfully prevented her mother from letting out the property and also caused the tenant in occupation of the ground floor to vacate. The plaintiff and her mother have been forced to live in a rented place, besides they also in loss of rental income from the suit property, she alone being in physical enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff was married on 30.10.1988 and the 2nd defendant was married on 30.10.2001 and they were all along looking after their mother till her demise in January 2004 including spending money for her medical expenses, which runs upto Rs.7,00,000/-. The first defendant never contributed money for their mother. The mother of the plaintiff settled her 1/4 undivided share of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant by way of a registered settlement deed dated 03.11.2003. In view of the said settlement deed, the shares of the plaintiff and the second defendant has been enlarged to 3/8th share each in the suit property. Though notice was exchanged even during the lifetime of their mother, there was no solution and finally, a notice was issued by the plaintiff on 10.05.2005 demanding partition and separate possession. Inspite of the lawyer notice, neither the defendants sent any reply nor come forward for amicable division in the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of preliminary decree to declare the plaintiff's 3/8th share in the suit property and also direction to direct the first defendant to pay Rs.1,80,000/- for mesne profits and also for a direction to the first defendant to pay Rs.5000/- towards future mense profits from the date of plaint till the date of preliminary decree.

(3.) The case of the first defendant, in brief, is as follows :- The first defendant denied the fact that the suit property was purchased by equal contribution of all the purchasers, namely, the plaintiff, defendants and their mother. The fact remains that the entire sale consideration for purchasing the property was made by selling the ancestral properties. The father of the plaintiff and the defendants had received the property from his father and brothers by way of partition. After purchase of the suit property, the other ancestral properties were sold and from and out of the sale proceeds, joint family business, namely Gas Agency, was started in the name of the plaintiff. Apart from that , a property was purchased at Tiruvottriyur for the purpose of the gas business and certain other properties were purchased in the name of the second defendant by investing the consideration for starting the business and purchase of all the properties were made only from and out of the sale consideration received by selling the ancestral properties. The mother of the plaintiff and the defendants was a house wife throughout. The plaintiff and the second defendant were minors at the time of purchase of the suit property and other properties. Therefore, the first defendant has got share in all the properties equally with that of the plaintiff and the second defendant. Shares were purchased in various companies in the name of the plaintiff, second defendant and their mother at the insistence of the plaintiff and the second defendant. Moveable assets were purchased in the name of the plaintiff using the money derived from the ancestral property. A portion in the ground floor was let out by the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants and she has collected the rents. After the demise of the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff and the second defendant moved away from the property and now, the property is kept under lock and key and this defendant has not derived any income from the said property. Therefore, there is no question of any mesne profits derived from the property, which is liable to be shared. Since the entire properties had been purchased from and out of the funds of the ancestral property, those properties also to be included in the suit and therefore, the suit cannot be succeeded. The execution of the settlement in the name of the plaintiff and the second defendant were denied .