N. RAMALINGAM AND ORS. Vs. N. THANICKACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in both the appeals in S.A.No.493 & 494 of 2015 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5234 of 1981 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for partition and for mesne profits. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs thereby granting a decree for partition to the tune of 5/16 th share in the suit property to the plaintiffs. The second defendant was allotted 5/16 th share and the third defendant was allotted 6/16 th share. There was no appeal filed by any of the parties against the said preliminary decree and thus, the same has become final.

(2.) Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.11711 of 1987 before the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for passing a final decree thereby dividing the suit property by meets and bounds. During the said proceeding, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to divide the suit property and to submit a report. The learned Advocate Commissioner submitted a report to the effect that the suit property was indivisible. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an another Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.6006 of 2003 before the trial Court for selling the suit property and to pay their share of 5/16 th share. In the mean while, the second defendant sold away her 5/16 th share in favour of the third defendant and thus, the third defendant has got a major share to the tune of 11/16 th share. The third defendant therefore filed I.A.No.11253 of 2003 before the trial Court seeking permission to purchase the share of 5/16 th share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had expressed no objection for the third defendant to purchase their share. In order to ascertain the market value of the suit property, so as to direct the third defendant to purchase 5/16 th share of the plaintiffs, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Advocate Commissioner accordingly submitted a report fixing the market value of the suit property at Rs.57,47,712/-. The same was accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court therefore,directed the third defendant to pay a sum of Rs.17,96,1160/- to the plaintiffs to get the sale completed. Accordingly, I.A.No.11253 of 2003 was disposed of.

(3.) So far as the mesne profits is concerned, the trial Court fixed the mesne profits at Rs.13,03,065/- and directed the third defendant to pay 5/16 th share out of the same to the plaintiffs i.e., Rs.4,07,377/-.