K.RAMALINGAM Vs. K.RAGHURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006 made in O.S.No.504 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Judge Fast Track Court-1, Chingleput, whereby the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition by allotting 1/4th share to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The unsuccessful first defendant is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 and plaintiff are the sons of 3rd defendant. 4th Defendant is the wife of 1st defendant. The joint family originally owned ancestral property of a total extent of ten acres (Suit Item Nos.1 to 7) in Cheyyur. Defendant No.3 has also been taking on lease lands of one Venu and Adikesavulu and also salt lands and was getting substantial income. The 3rd defendant was also doing contract work for Public Works Department and Harijan welfare Department. The elder son - 2nd defendant was employed in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ( in short, "BHEL")and he joined in service in or about 1970 and voluntarily retired in 2001.

(3.) FURTHER case of plaintiff is that the 2nd defendant was working as General Manager in Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited and voluntarily retired from service in September 2000 and he has been helping family financially in order to promote joint family business. On 1.10.1991, the 1st defendant executed Ex.A.8 agreement in favour of plaintiff admitting joint family nature of the business in gas agency and agreeing to give 30% share in the profits to the plaintiff. As early as in 1993, a Panchayat was held and in the presence of respectable Panchayatdars and defendants 2 to 4, wherein, the 1st defendant agreed and admitted that the gas agency is a joint family concern and that the plaintiff is entitled to a share therein. In pursuance of the Panchayat, the original agreement, which was in the custody of the 3rd defendant, was taken by the 1st defendant on the representation that he wanted to show it to his advocate and that the 1st defendant did not return the agreement to the 3rd defendant thereafter. The 1st defendant had also returned to the 2nd defendant Ex.B.13 letter (dated 4.4.1993) admitting that the Gas Agency and allied businesses and also properties purchased therefrom belonged to the joint family and that the father and 3 brothers have shares in them. On 5.8.1994, the 1st defendant has paid Rs.2 lakhs to the plaintiff towards his share of income from the Gas Agency Joint family business and subsequently in 1995, the 1st defendant paid another Rs.1 lakh to the plaintiff calling upon the defendants 1 to 3 to effect partition. Plaintiff sent a notice on 20.4.2002 and sent a notice demanding partition. Even though defendants 2 and 3 are amenable for partition, the 1st defendant had sent a reply containing false allegations. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit seeking for partition of the suit properties into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to him.