BHUVANESWARI Vs. SANKARANARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as well as the contending Respondents. The Petitioner in the Revision was the Sixth Defendant in the Suit.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the Suit was filed by the Respondents 1 to 5 herein, seeking partition and separate possession of the Sit Schedule property. In the Suit, Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.372 of 2011, was filed by the Plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased, S. Alamelu Ammal/Second Defendant of the Suit on record and for seeking enhanced share in view of the death of the Second Defendant, through whom the parties claiming their right to the property. Since all the Legal Heirs of the Second Defendant are parties to the Suit, a Memo was filed to recognize that they are the Legal Heirs of the Second Defendant. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Sixth Defendant, has no objection insofar as recording the Memo is concerned, since the parties are the Legal Heirs of he deceased Second Defendant and also for amending the share as 1/9th instead of 1/10th.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned Counsel appearing for the contending Respondents/R1 to r10 submitted that it is a Partition Suit, hence even without a prayer seeking Mesne Profits in the Plaint, the parties, who are entitled to get shares can claim Mesne Profits from the persons, who are in possession and enjoyment of the property. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 10 cited the following decisions of this Court in Gnanaprakasa Mudaliar v. B. Anandathandavan, 1999 (2) CTC 6; Babburu Basavayya v. Babburu Guruvayya and another, AIR (38) 1951 Mad. 938.