THANGAM Vs. GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the judgment in A.S.No.72 of 2019, dtd. 11/3/2020, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment in O.S.No.130 of 2015, dtd. 27/6/2019, on the file of Sub-Court, Sankarankovil.

(2.) The appellant and the respondent are brother and sister. The respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.130 of 2015 seeking the relief of partition in respect of the suit properties. The case of the respondent/Plaintiff is that the suit properties belong to both the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is the elder brother. However, keeping the defendant alongside with him in his business, the suit properties were purchased during 1994-1999. The property tax was assessed in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant. They are running a hotel in the suit property in the name and style of ''Thangam Hotel''. After purchase of the suit properties, a new building was constructed spending lakhs of rupees in the suit property. From March 2014, the defendant has not shown the proper accounts and therefore, a panchayat was held in the presence of the elders of the family. After accepting the terms reached for effecting partition, the defendant has not come forward to execute the partition deed. On the other hand, he sent a demand draft for Rs.10,000.00 stating that it relates to lease for the land. The plaintiff returned the demand draft. In the said circumstances, the suit was filed for patition of plaintiff's half share in the suit properties.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is admitted. However, the claim made by the plaintiff that the suit properties were purchased jointly using the funds of the plaintiff, is denied. It is also denied that they have been running Hotel Thangam from the year 1994. It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit properties were purchased as vacant lands. The boundaries, extent and survey number are wrongly given in the plaint. In 2001, in the Tamil month of ''Thi'', the plaintiff and defendant had divided the properties orally. As per the oral partition, the western portion was allotted to the defendant and the eastern portion was allotted to the plaintiff. After oral partition, the parties have been enjoying their respective portions. The defendant took lease of the plaintiff's land and constructed a building thereon using his wife's jewelleries. The plaintiff is entitled for only the land in the suit properties and he has no right in the building. The defendant was granted license for running the hotel in the name and style of ''Thangam Hotel''. The plaintif had never been in possession and enjoyment of the building in the suit property. The defendant is paying Rs.10,000.00 towards lease of the land. Till December 2013, the lease amount was paid. When the lease amount was sent through demand draft, in December 2014, that was not received. The defendant had sent the lease amount through demand draft to the plaintiff and that was refused. The defendant is entitled for protection under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.