M R MURALI Vs. HEMALATHA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2011 dismissing the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., 3rd Defendant/Party -in-person has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE dispute is in respect of the division of the properties between the legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandra Naidu. Suit properties and other properties were originally belonged to one Bashyam Naidu and parties are related as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2979_TLMAD0_2011.htm</FRM>

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit C.S.No.952 of 1990 for partition against her father, mother and brother and sister [Defendants 1 to 4]. Tenants were also impleaded as Defendants 5 to 7 in the suit. Plaintiff has alleged that her father-1st Defendant along with Defendants 2 to 4 have been dealing with the suit properties to the detriment of the Plaintiff and without her consent and knowledge, Ramachandra Naidu, who has no right of alienation, has alienated "B" schedule property to the 6th Defendant-Subramanian. Plaintiff has further alleged that the grandchildren of testator are absolutely entitled to the immovable properties and the Will [30.01.1935] specifically mentions that the grandsons together are to take half share in the immovable properties and thereby the testator had intended that the remaining half share should be taken absolutely by the granddaughters viz., the Plaintiff and 4th Defendant-Krishna kumari. Stating that she is entitled to 1/4th share, Plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of "A" "B" "C" and "D" schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to her.