RAJAN SRINIVAN CHENNAI Vs. RAMJI SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above suit for partition, A.Ramamurthi, J. by his order dated 21.12.2000, granted preliminary decree declaring the shares of the plaintiffs and the first defendant at 14/32 shares each and the second defendant at 4/32 shares. An Advocate- Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features and to find out whether the property who capable of division.

(2.) THE Advocate- Commissioner filed his report on 23.2.2001 stating that it was not possible or convenient in the interest of the parties to divide the property at 14: 14: 4 ratio. THE first defendant had filed his objections dated 24.3.2001, on 28.3.2001 and contended that the property can be divided by metes and bounds and also annexed the plan suggesting division.

(3.) MR.P.S. Raman, appearing for the plaintiff contends that the Engineer's report shows that it would be beneficial for all the parties to sell the entire property and no useful purpose would be served in dividing the property into three shares. The Engineers had suggested the alternatives only in terms of the orders of the Court, but had ultimately expressed that the best advantage of all the parties would only be to dispose of the entire property. The alternative plan submitted by the first defendant was not a practical solution and the first defendant was only interested in protracting the proceedings since he was in possession of the property to the exclusion of the others, all these years. Though 18 shares out of 32 shares are held by plaintiffs and the second defendant, the first defendant had been successfully clinging on the property to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the defendants, and successfully kept out the plaintiff when the plaintiff sought for joint possession. The same attitude is adopted now also, in not allowing the property to be sold to the best advantage of all the three.