RAJI AND ORS. Vs. KRISHNA VENI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the preliminary decree passed by the trial court (Fast Track Court No. V, Chennai) dated 26.03.2003 made in O.S. No. 945/2000. The defendants 4 to 9 in the original suit are the appellants in the appeal. The plaintiff in the original suit is the first respondent in the appeal and the other defendants, namely defendants 1 to 3 and 10 to 13 are respondents 2 to 8 in the appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the first respondent herein for the relief of partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit properties. Partly terraced and partly tiled house bearing Door No. 45, Dharmaraj Koil Street, Korukkupet, is shown as plaint 'A' schedule property. As many as 35 items of lands at Kuruvi Agaram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk have been shown as Plaint 'B' schedule properties. Contending that the suit properties were the absolute properties of late Narayanasamy Naicker and she, as one of the legal heirs of Narayanasamy Naicker, was entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties, the first respondent herein filed the above said suit for partition and separate possession.

(3.) CONTENDING that the first respondent/plaintiff was not given her due share in the income derived from the properties; that her oral demand for partition was also met with mere promise to do so, which prompted her to issue a pre -suit notice dated 12.10.1999 and that the demand thus made in writing for partition was also not met with, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition. Since a part of Plaint 'A' schedule property had been sold by the appellants herein/defendants 4 to 9 in favour of Dr. Sujatha, the 7th respondent/12th defendant, which included the share of the first respondent/plaintiff also, the first respondent/plaintiff made the 7th respondent/12th defendant a party and sought the relief of partition in respect of 'A' schedule property also on the basis of her contention that the sale made by the appellants herein/defendants would not bind her share. The remaining portion of suit 'A' schedule property was purchased by the 8th respondent/13th defendant on the same day on which the 7th respondent/12th defendant purchased the other part. Hence subsequently, Rajkumar the 8th respondent/13th defendant was also included as a party.