SARASWATHI Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated January 31, 2023 passed by 'the District Munsif Court, Udumalaipettai' ['Trial Court' for brevity] in I.A.No.772 of 2022 in O.S.No.96 of 2011, the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

(2.) The Revision Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents herein are the Defendants in the Original Suit in O.S.No.96 of 2011 on the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

(3.) The Plaintiff filed the Suit for partition and other relief against the Defendants. In the plaint, it has been stated that the Plaintiff and the First Defendant are Sister and Brother born through the second wife of Malli Chettiar, who passed away about 23 years before the Suit. The third Defendant is the son of Malli Chettiar born through his first wife. Malli Chettiar, Plaintiff, Defendants 1 and 3 were living jointly. The mother of the Plaintiff passed away 25 years before the Suit and Malli Chettiar passed away intestate in the year 1987 leaving the Plaintiff, Defendants 1 and 3 as his legal heirs / legal representatives to succeed his estate. The plaint further reads that the first Defendant is not married till date (as on the date of Suit). At the instance of the first Defendant, a family arrangement took place in the year 1990, in which, the Suit Properties were allotted to the share of the Plaintiff and first Defendant jointly while the other properties of Malli Chettiar were allotted to the third Defendant. The first Defendant was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property allotted to him and Plaintiff. The first Defendant was paying the Plaintiff's share amount periodically till the end of December 2009. Then, in the month of January 2011, when the Plaintiff approached the first Defendant for her share amount for the year 2010, the first Defendant started giving evasive answers. Later, in the month of January 2011, the Plaintiff came to know that the first Defendant had entered into Sale Agreement with the second Defendant for the sole purpose of defeating the valuable rights of the Plaintiff in the Suit Properties. Hence the Suit for partition and permanent injunction against the first Defendant.