B C MURALIKRISHNA Vs. B VENUGOPAL CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 7 to 10, who are the legal representatives of the deceased 6th defendant in O. S. No. 4963 of 1982 on the file of the V assistant Judge, City Civil Court , chennai, are the appellants.

(2.) THE parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit.

(3.) THE first defendant, the father of the plaintiff, denying the allegations in the plaint, would contend that the suit property originally belonged to his father Munusamy Chetty, as his self-acquired property, which devolved upon the widow Muthyalamma and four sons of Munusamy Chetty on his death; that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share, labeling the property as co-parcenery property; that Tandavakrishna executed a release deed in favour of his mother and brothers; that Muthyalamma settled her share in the property in favour of defendants 1, 5 and 6 and thus this property is the separate property of defendants 1,5 and 6; that if at all, the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/25th share and not 1/15th share; that this defendant, as father and manager, effected partition of the property, on 19. 9. 1981, that too with the concurrence and knowledge of the plaintiff; that the value of the entire house was determined at Rs. 90,000/=, and the 6th paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 30,000/= each to this defendant and to the 5th defendant, out of which this defendant tendered a sum of Rs. 3,600/= to the plaintiff, being the share of the plaintiff in the suit property, which was refused; that the suit filed, without the relief of declaration, for setting aside the partition, is not maintainable and if at all the plaintiff is entitled only to owelty of rs. 3,600/=.