RAMANUJAM AND ORS. Vs. V. MANICKAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S. No. 690 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras are the appellants. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged 1/4th share in two items of properties. The first plaintiff and defendants 2 and 7 are the sons of the first defendant. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the sons of the first plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 6 are the sons of the second defendant. Defendants 8 and 9 are the sons of the 7th defendant. Suit item 1 is a house and ground bearing door No. 30, Aziz Mulk Second Street, Thousandlights, Madras and suit item 2 is the site and superstructure bearing door No 11/105, Mount Road, Madras.

(2.) THE defendants did not resist the claim of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their 1/4tb share in suit item 1 as also the site in item 2. They disputed the plaintiff's claim only in relation to the superstructure in item 2. Their case was that though the site in item 2 was the joint family property, it having been purchased by raising a mortgage loan over the suit item 1, the superstructure on suit item 2 did not belong to the joint family, that the first plaintiff and defendants 2 and 7 were carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of 'Cement article works', that the superstructure was constructed on the site in item 2 with the profits from the said partnership business, that the first plaintiff had later on released all his rights in the partnership in favour of defendants 2 and 7 on 1st August, 1960 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000 and therefore, none of the plaintiffs is entitled to claim a share in the superstructure an asset of the partnership which is still being carried on toy defendants 2 and 7. They also claimed to have obtained a lease of the site in item 2 from the first defendant as manager of the joint family for a period of 99 years from 6th July, 1955 under a lease deed dated 5th September, 1962 on a monthly rental of Rs. 95 that, therefore the plaintiff's right to a share in the site in item No.2 can only be subject to the said leasehold right of defendants 2 and 7 and, that the plaintiffs can at best claim only 1/4th share in the monthly rent of Rs. 95 paid by defendants 2 and 7 for the site.

(3.) IN this, appeal the plaintiffs have, challenged the decision of the, lower Court in relation to the superstructure on the site in item 2. After due consideration of the pleading's and the evidence adduced in the case, I should say that the Court below has come to the right conclusion.