REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PANDITHURAI Appellant

V/S

SIVALINGAM Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MAMPERSHED V. SHEOCHARAN [REFERRED TO]
TARA V. REEB [REFERRED TO]
ADUNMONI V. CHOWDHURY [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJULUNGARU V. RAJAH [REFERRED TO]
UMRIT V. GOURCE [REFERRED TO]
JUGMOHANDAS V. MANGALDAS [REFERRED TO]
CHELIKANI V. CHELIKANI [REFERRED TO]
JAMNA V. RAM [REFERRED TO]
DHARMADAS V. AMULGA [REFERRED TO]
ATAR V. THAKAR [REFERRED TO]
SARADA V. MAHANANDA [REFERRED TO]
BACHCHO V. DHARAM [REFERRED TO]
ADHAR V. NABIN [REFERRED TO]
NAGALINGAM V. RAMA [REFERRED TO]
BAIJINATH V. MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN KHAN V. KISHVA [REFERRED TO]
BAI PARSON V. BAI SOMLI [REFERRED TO]
LAL V SWARNA [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA V SHETHUSAMI [REFERRED TO]
SHEODINLAL V. NARAYANADAS [REFERRED TO]
RANGANAYAKI AMMAL V. SRINIVASAN [REFERRED TO]
P. V. RAMA IYER V. INDIRA [REFERRED TO]
BEJAY V. ASHU [REFERRED TO]
THYALALAMBAL V. KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
NUTBEHARI V. NANI-LAL [REFERRED TO]
HARIDOS V. NAROTAM [REFERRED TO]
BAIKISHORE V. MADAN [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASAMI V. SEETHALAKSHMU [REFERRED TO]
MOTI V. BHAGWAN [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KANT V. NAZMA [REFERRED TO]
ANGA NAICKER V. PONNUSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
GOURANGA V. MOHENDRA [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA V. AMA [REFERRED TO]
RAJANI V JAGAMOHAN [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDA CHANDRA V RADHA [REFERRED TO]
VENKAYAMMA V. GANGAYYA [REFERRED TO]
GOHATI V. DEBENDRA [REFERRED TO]
MANIBHAI V. SANKARLAL [REFERRED TO]
CHUNI V. RADHA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNACHARIAR V. CHALLAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
ALAVANDER V. DANAKOTI [REFERRED TO]
NAINA V. DAIVANI [REFERRED TO]
ANNAMALAI V. SUBRAMANIAM [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH V. TACAPADA [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANASWAMI,V RATNASABAPATHI [REFERRED TO]
LAL RAM V. DEPUTY [REFERRED TO]
HASSANAND V. DANMAL [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL V. VELAYAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
SITA V. BALAK [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA V. BAI [REFERRED TO]
AHOBILACHARIAR V. THULASI [REFERRED TO]
RAJANI V. BASHIAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR SINGH V. ROHINI RAMANADWAJ PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PERIAKARUPPAN CHETTY V. ARUNACHALAM CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
GOURI V. GOPAL [REFERRED TO]
RANDHI APPALASWAMI V. RANDHI SURYANARAYANAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
MURUGESAN PILLAI V. MANIKAVASAKA DESIKA GNANA SAMBANDHA PANDARA SANNADHI [REFERRED TO]
BILAS KUMARAN V. DESRAJ RANJIT SINGH. [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS KRISHNARAO KANGO VS. NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO [REFERRED TO]
RUKHMABAI VS. LALA LAXMINARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
MALLESAPPA BANDEPPA DESAI VS. DESAI MALLAPPA ALIAS MALLESAPPA [REFERRED TO]
BASANT SINGH VS. JANKI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAMRATI KUER VS. DWARIKA PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
G NARAYANA RAJU DEAD VS. G CHAMARAJU [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR VS. MOHAMED HAJI LATIF [REFERRED TO]
MUDI GOWDA GOWDAPPA SANKH VS. RAM CHANDRA RAVAGOWUA SANKH [REFERRED TO]
K V NARAYANAN VS. K V RANGANANDHAN [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BINOD BIHARI LAL VS. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINHA [REFERRED TO]
JONNAGADLA SEETHAMMA VS. JONNAGADLA VEERANA CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
K CHANDRASEKHARAM SUBUDI AND SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT KRISHNA DAS VS. AJIT KUMAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
SUBRA MANIA IYER V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) " This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.17 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli granting a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares with reference to good and bad soil and alloting one such share to the plaintiff and one such share to defendants 4 to 9. Defendants 1 to 3 were directed by the court below to render a true and proper account in respect of the income derived by them from the suit properties to the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 9 from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of their respective shares to them. The Court below has relegated the quantum of mesne profits to be decided in separate proceedings under Or.20. R.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed that the costs of the suit will come out of the estate.

(2.) THE suit was laid by Sivalingam, the plaintiff (first respondent in this appeal) for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of one such share to him, to direct the defendants to account for the income from the suit properties from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession of one -third share to the plaintiff and for costs of suit. Defendants 1 and 4 to 9 are respondents 2 to 8 in this appeal. Minor respondents 6 to 8 are represented by guardian mother Pachaiammal the 3rd respondent.

(3.) THE 2nd defendant, Pandithurai, filed a written statement which was adopted by the 1st defendant, Sellammal. THEir contentions are: THE allegation that the father and sons were enjoying the leasehold lands taken on lease from Venugopala Reddiar's estate and were deriving the income therefrom is denied. THE income got from the leasehold lands was not sufficient for maintaining and feeding the family. So also the allegations in the plaint that Marimuthu was a person of unsteady and undesirable habits and so Marudai was in management of the family and its affairs, are all false. Again it is false to state that Marimuthu was giving his earnings to Marudai and that properties were purchased in the name of Marudai from out of the joint contributions. Except the ancestral house and a tope, there was no other ancestral property and so the father and the sons were eking out their livelihood separately having separate mess and savings. It is false to state that the plaintiff was earning substantial income and he was sending his savings to Marudai for the purpose of acquiring properties for the benefit of the family. No contributons were made by the plaintiff either in person or through bank drafts to Marudai for the acqusition of properties set out in the plaint. All the said items are the separate and self -acquired properties of Marudai. THE plaintiff occasionally sent his savings to Marudai with a direction to hand over the same to his (Plaintiff's) father -in -law and they were accordingly handed over to his father -in -law. THE plaintiff also used to send occasionally his savings to his father -in -law. Properties were also purchased by the plaintiff's father -in -law for the benefit of the plaintiff. Taking advantage of the death of Marudai, the plaintiff has filed this suit raising false and frivolous contentions. Marudai was having brick -kilns and manufacturing bricks and he was also cultivating lands on lease. From out of the substantial profits he made from all these sources, he purchased the properties mentioned in the plaint and so they are his self -acquired properties in which the plaintiff has no right. THE sending of rice by Marudai to the plaintiff was due to the brotherly obligation and nothing else. This defendant has no objection to the partition of the ancestral properties. THE suit properties have not been properly valued and correct court -fee has not been paid. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

Click here to view full judgment.

PANDITHURAI Vs. SIVALINGAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address