RENUKA MANUEL Vs. MALLIKA SURENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaint averments are as follows:-

(2.) The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and would contend that the suit property belonged to Late Tmt. Helen Dasan and after her demise, the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to get equal shares. The defendant would further aver that there was an old dilapidated building, which could not be used for effective occupation, and the father of the plaintiff and the defendant came forward to help them by putting up a construction consisting of ground and first floors, and after construction, the plaintiff shall occupy the first floor and the defendant shall occupy the ground floor, sharing common amenities and the open terrace.

(3.) It is further averred by the defendant that the cost of construction was Rs. 85 lakhs and since neither of them had money, their father had sold the properties at Madurai as well as at Chennai and put up a construction out of the said sale consideration, with an understanding that he will have the life interest in the superstructure and will occupy one floor of the property and will receive the rental income from the other floor for his livelihood, until his life time and on account of the fact that the father of the defendant by spending his own money, had put up the superstructure, neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant is having any right over the same and their father is entitled to deal with the superstructure as he likes.