BALASUBRAMANIA NAINAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 45 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram is the Appellant.

(2.) The First Defendant contested the Suit admitting that the 'A' Schedule property mentioned in the Suit was included in the Schedule 'C' of the Partition Deed as stated in the Plaint. Nevertheless, the First Defendant denied the allegations that 'C Schedule properties mentioned in the partition of the year 1950 were leased out and also denied the allegation that the School was managed by Ramasami Nainar and the Plaintiff and according to the Defendant, the School was managed by Ramasami Nainar and the Plaintiff never evinced any interest nor exercised any right over the administration of the School or over the other properties which are mentioned in the 'C' Schedule to the Partition Deed of the year 1950. The Plaintiff also lost his right by ouster. It is further stated that the School was surrendered by the First Defendant's father Ramasami Nainar to the Government and the 'A' Schedule property mentioned in the Plaint was treated as the property of the First Defendant and the Plaintiff never received any compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the Government As the Plaintiff lost his right by not exercising any right over the Suit property, he is not entitled to the relief of partition and therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The 14th Defendant filed statement stating that if for any reason, the Suit is decreed, the property purchased by him can be allotted to the share of the First Defendant so that he can exercise his equity in the final decree proceedings.