J. SAVITHRI Vs. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am constrained to exercise the suo motu powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India in this case.

(2.) The admitted case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.899 of 1991 is that the property belonged to one Chinna Pappal. She is said to have executed a registered Will dtd. 12/7/1964 bequeathing the entire properties to her sons namely C.K.Kannuswamy Pillai and K.Govindarajulu. On the demise of C.K.Kannuswamy Pillai, his legal heirs and K.Govindarajulu partitioned the property by way of a registered document dtd. 27/10/1988. The plaintiff would further aver that the property obtained from a paternal grandmother should be treated as joint family property. On that basis, the plaintiffs made a claim of 6/7 share in favour of the plaint and 1/7 share for the defendant. The suit was decreed in and by a judgment dtd. 6/8/1997. The judgment reads as follows:

(3.) A perusal of the said judgment shows that it does not comply with the requirement of Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC. Even if the defendant had remained ex-parte, it is the duty of the Court to give reasons for its judgments. It is all the more necessary where the defendant has remained ex-parte, the Court should analyse the case of the plaintiff and come to a just conclusion.