F.ABDUL SUBAN Vs. A.NOORUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant, who lost the legal battle before the trial Court has come forward with this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.1994 made in O.S.No.78 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in item 1 to 4 of the suit properties alaong with the 2nd defendant/4th respondent herein stating that the suit properties are originally belong to one Fackir Mohammed, who is none other than the father of first defendant/appellant and one Abdul Majid. The first plaintiff is the wife of Abdul Majid and their children are the second and third plaintiffs and the second defendant. The father of the first defendant and Abdul Majid viz. T.A.Fackir Mohammed Saheb had executed a registered settlement deed dated 14.07.1968, in which, ?A? schedule properties were allotted to the first defendant and Abdul Majid. So they are entitled + share in the suit properties. They have not effected partition between them by metes and bounds. Even after the death of Abdul Majid on

(3.) 05.1991, the suit property is being possessed and enjoyed in common by both the plaintiffs and defendants. 3.As per the settlement deed, the legal heir of Abdul Majid is entitled 1/2 share in the property. Abdul Majid was suffering some ailments and he was in a helpless situation and he had lot of noudles over his face and body and hence, the first defendant obtained documents from him by fraud. Therefore, the plaintiffs and the second defendant have filed separate suits for setting aside the release and exchange deeds obtained by the first defendant and the suit is pending in O.S.No.249 of 1991 before the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The plaintiffs filed another suit with reference to the partnership firm called as ?R.S.Emporium?, which is also pending. When the plaintiffs demanded orally a partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds and dividing separate properties for their half share in the suit properties, the same has not been complied with by the first defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties.