SAROJA Vs. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant who was the first defendant in O.S.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court at Nammkal. Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent / third defendant in the suit and also the learned counsel for the third respondent / second defendant in the suit. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent / plaintiff.

(2.) I am informed that there was a delay in filing the appeal. At that particular point of time, the learned counsel for the second respondent / plaintiff has taken notice. Since notice has also been served subsequently after the Appeal has been numbered and the name and address of the second respondent is printed, even though there is no representation, I may not hold over the first appeal any further on the board of this Court.

(3.) The suit in O.S. has been filed for partition and separate possession. It has been filed by a sister, against her other two sisters and her brother. The schedule of the properties for which partition was sought, has been given in the plaint. The plaintiff sought 1/4th undivided share in the suit schedule property. She also sought a further relief that the third defendant in the suit / the brother should not deal with the property. In the said suit, written statement has also been filed.