T K VENKATESAN Vs. T K SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the respondent are the sons of late T.K.Krishna Iyengar, who died on 5.4.1965.

(2.) The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.485 of 1976 against the petitioner herein on the file of Sub Court, Salem praying the court to grant decree for partition and for separate possession of his half share in all the plaint schedule properties (Schedule A to D) and further direct the petitioner to account for all the amounts set out in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 and for all the incomes he had received from the family estate in the past and for all the incomes subsequent to the suit and direct payment to him of one half share in the total income.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, Salem, who tried the said suit, passed a decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession in respect of B and C Schedule properties and that the respondent/plaintiff is also entitled to past mesne profits in respect of B and C Schedule properties for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit and for future mesne profits. The court also ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in respect of A and D Schedule properties. On those findings, the court passed preliminary decree for partition of B and C Schedule properties into two shares and allotted one such share to the respondent/plaintiff. The further clause in the decree reads that the mesne profits for which, the respondent/plaintiff will be entitled to, will be decided under separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. The petitioner/defendant took up the matter further. But however, it reached a finality in L.P.A.No.173 of 1987, in which, a Division Bench of this court held that the respondent/plaintiff would be entitled for the share as declared by the trial court, but however, with regard to the mesne profits, he shall be granted only on and from May-June 1976 and not for any earlier period. Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No.588 of 1997 under Order 26 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the court to pass a final decree. The Subordinate Judge, Salem, disposed of the said application by an order dated 23.3.1998 allotting specific property to both the parties. The petitioner questioned the correctness of the same by filing an appeal A.S.No.75 of 1998 before the District Judge, Salem. By judgment dated 19.8.1999, the appellate court disposed of the same with some modification. The petitioner took up the matter further before this court in Second Appeal No.107 of 2000 and the same was dismissed on 4.8.2000 by a learned single Judge of this court.