B V SRINIVASAN Vs. B V TULASIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mrs.A.Subbulakshmy, J: First defendant is the appellant.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: Originally the suit property was owned by one Subbiah Bhagavathar. the three branches of Subbiah Bhagavathar entered into a registered partition deed on 14.11.1957 dividing the two houses in T.S.1865 and T.S.1864, Sivarayar Garden III Street, M.Chavadi, Thanjavur. The suit is related to the properties viz. A2 schedule property which was obtained by the father of the plaintiff and first defendant and B schedule property which was obtained by the plaintiff and the defendant and it is not ancestral property. The plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share in A2 schedule property since it was allotted to the share of Venkatachalapathy and his three sons through his second wife viz. the plaintiff, the first defendant and their another brother by name Govindaraju in the partition deed dated 14.11.1957. A to C schedule properties were given to Venkatachalapathy, Krishnasamy and Chakrapani's adopted son Ramamurthy respectively. Venkatachalapathy had subsequently become the owner of B and C schedules of the partition deed also. Krishnasamy, the B schedule property owner had purchased on 29.6.1966 C schedule property from Ramamurthy. Thus Krishnasamy was the owner of both B and C schedules. Venkatachalapathy obtained this B and C schedule portion also under a registered exchange deed dated 28.11.1979 with Krishnasamy. Venkatachalapathy gives his property in T.S.1866 in exchange for B and C schedule properties of the partition deed dated 14.11.1957. Thus, B and C schedule properties are the self-acquisitions of Venkatachalapathy. The plaintiff bought T.S.1866 in the name of his father. The plaintiff is content calling Venkatachalapathy as the real owner of T.S.1866 and also the property obtained by him in exchange. The plaintiff's father died on 4.3.1983. While he was alive, he had executed an unregistered Will on 25.3.1982 in a sound disposing state of mind. He has bequeathed his 1/3rd share in plaint A2 schedule in favour of the plaintiff. He has bequeathed the property obtained by him in exchange in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share in plaint A2 schedule property. The plaintiff and first defendant has a brother Govindaraju, who has given a release deed in favour of the plaintiff, first defendant and their father Venkatachalapathy. Thus, in A2 schedule property, the plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share and the first defendant is entitled to 1/3rd share. The plaintiff has inducted a tenant for the past 1-1/2 years after raising a RCC building over the kollai portion described as A schedule, in the 1957 year partition deed and the rent is Rs.175 per month. The plaintiff's father was not earning and all earnings were made by the plaintiff who was supporting his father. The first defendant is employed at Madras for over 30 years. He did not care to send money to his father. B schedule property is a house at Madras purchased by the plaintiff and the first defendant for a sum of Rs.27,000 on 19.1.1974. The plaintiff is entitled to half share in that property. Though the plaintiff's contribution is more than a moiety, the plaintiff does not want to go into those details and is claiming a half share. In fact, the plaintiff has given his own money after purchase for converting the tiled portion into RCC in the ground floor and Madras terrace in the first floor. Defendants 2 to 4 are the tenants occupying B schedule property and each are paying a sum of Rs.300 to the first defendant as rent. The plaintiff has allowed the first defendant to receive that rent. Apart from partition of B schedule property, the first defendant is liable to render an account for profits. The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000. The plaintiff and the first defendant could not settle the matter amicably. The mediators intervened to settle the dispute, but it could not be settled. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for partition and separate possession of his 2/3rd share in A2 schedule property and half share in B schedule property and for rendition of accounts.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed C.M.P. Nos.617 of 2001 for raising additional grounds and 6543 of 1993 to receive additional documents.