GURUSWAMI ASARI Vs. RAJU ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 339 of 1964 on the file of the court of the District munsif of Chingleput who succeeded before the trial Court but lost before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein. The suit was instituted by the appellants for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share to each of the suit properties under the following circumstances Ex. A-1 dated 23-3-1958 is an agreement entered into between the appellants and the second defendant and his father. Ganapathi Asari. This document refers to the suit properties as belonging to the second defendant and his father but proceeds to state that the patta in the Zamin estate for the suit properties stood in the name of all the seven persons who were parties to Ex. A-1 and that for arrears of kist for faslis 1361 to 1367, amounting to rs. 601, the suit properties were sold by the Firka Revenue Inspector Cheyyur on 24-2-1958 and were purchased by one Kittu Iyengar of Maduranthakam. The agreement further states that for the purpose of having that sale cancelled the appellants herein contributed Rs. 109 each amounting to Rs. 454 which they had paid to Ganapathi Asari who had to contribute a sum of Rs. 109 himself Rs. 56 being the deficit amount for being deposited for having the sale cancelled and Rs. 53 being the amount required for expenses. The agreement also states that the amount should be deposited in the State Bank, Chingleput, on 24-3-1958 and the sale should be got cancelled. Another provision contained in the agreement is that for the lands in question Ganapathi Asari and the second defendant had applied for patta to the Settlement Officer, Tiruvellore and that as soon as those proceedings were over the suit properties should be divided into six shares, that the appellants should get 1/6 share each on payment of Rs. 50 by each of them, and that the remaining 1/6 share should belong to Ganapathi Asari and the second defendant. With reference to this partition the document states that the parties to the document should get their shares from that day onwards.

(2.) EX. A-2 is a document dated 15-3-1961, executed by the second defendant alone after the death of Ganapathi Asari which verbatim reproduces the provisions of Ex. A-1.

(3.) IT was on the basis of these documents that the appellants instituted the suit claiming partition as mentioned above, putting forward the contention that on their fulfillment of the condition of payment as contemplated by Ex. A-1, they became entitled to their respective shares in the suit properties.