LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-464

R KRISHNAVENI Vs. GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU

Decided On January 23, 2017
R Krishnaveni Appellant
V/S
GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit has been filed for a preliminary decree seeking partition and separate possession and allotment of half share in the suit property to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner dealing with the suit property. The suit property has described in the Plaint is situated at Plot No.47, Old Door No.6, New Door No.18, V.O.C. Colony, 1st Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai " 600 029 measuring to an extent of 3600 sq. ft. The plaintiff and the first defendant are sisters and brother. Consequently, the first defendant was also entitled to one half of the share. The second defendant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and it has been stated that the first defendant and the second defendant had entered into an agreement for development of the said property and consequently in the suit the relief of injunction has also been sought from dealing with the property.

(2.) The first defendant had filed his written statement accepting that the original plaintiff is his sister and that the property was purchased in the name of their father. He claimed that he had contributed entire sale consideration and for construction of the building. It had been stated that the first defendant had decided in the year 2009 to develop the property and consequently entered into a joint venture agreement with the second defendant and the second defendant had also commenced construction. The suit had been filed at the time when the old building was demolished and construction had commenced.

(3.) The second defendant had also filed a written statement stating that they entered into an agreement with the first defendant and they had demolished the old building in April 2009 and obtained planning permission from Corporation of Chennai and commenced construction of flats. They had also entered into an agreement with four prospective purchasers. They further stated that they had completed about 70% of construction when they have received the suit summons.