K.N.RAVINDRAN Vs. G.VENKATESH SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants in the appeal. Facts:

(2.) The plaintiff and the 5th defendant are the sons of one Ganalakshmi, who is the sister of defendants 1 to 4. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 under two different sale deeds, dtd. 12/12/1996 from one Thirumalaikolunthu Pillai and others. According to the plaintiff as the joint purchaser of the suit property, the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6 share in the suit property.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 to 3 being maternal uncle of the plaintiff wanted to start a business in the suit property, which was purchased as cited supra for the purpose of running a Ginning Factory in the name and style of Sri Rathina Kalyana Vinayagar Ginning Factory. The factory was run in partnership by the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants 1 to 3 were in charge of the business and near about the year 1997 when differences arose between the parties, the defendants 1 to 3 expressed their desire to run the business by themselves. Accordingly the plaintiff, defendants 3 to 5 executed a deed of retirement from the partnership business alone in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 on 31/1/2003. According to the plaintiff, the retirement deed was effected only with regard to the partnership business and not with respect to the suit property. The plaintiff was pressing the defendants to amicably divide the suit property but the defendants 1 and 2 were evading the same. The plaintiff as the co-sharer of the suit property entered into an agreement of sale in favour of one K.Rajaram on 2/5/2007 for which the defendants sent a notice on 7/7/2008 to the plaintiff directing him to cancel the sale agreement as according to them, the plaintiff had released his right in the suit property in their favour. The plaintiff issued a reply notice on 28/7/2008 to the said notice. As the defendants did not come forward to divide the properties, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of his 1/6th share in the suit property.