LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-264

NIRMALA NAGARAJAN Vs. V RAMESH

Decided On January 22, 2018
Nirmala Nagarajan Appellant
V/S
V Ramesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:-

(2.) It had been stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the daughter and son of late T.N.Vasudeva Rao. The Plaintiff is the elder sister of the Defendant. The Plaintiff got married to one T.S.Nagarajan in June 1992 and has been living with her husband at Kollidam and the Defendant has been living in the suit property. It has been further stated that the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant had purchased the item (1) of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.4.1978 registered as Document No.1054 of 1978 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet and constructed ground floor and first floor in the same and he died intestate on 103.1991, leaving behind his wife, Padma Vasudevan, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as is only legal heirs to succeed to the estate

(3.) It has been further stated that the mother of the Plaintiff also died intestate on 10.02.2009, leaving behind the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the only two legal heirs to succeed to the estate. There were several movable assets as set out in the item (2) of plaint Schedule left by the father and the mother. There were fixed deposits, aggregating Rs.20,00,000/- which were encashed by the Defendant and the movable assets have been retained by the Defendant. The Defendant has been receiving the rent from the rented ground floor portion of the suit property. The Plaintiff had demanded her share in the suit properties in 2014, for which, the Defendant denied. Hence, the relationship between them became strained. In August 2014, the Plaintiff had proposed for construction of apartment by tying up with a builder and the said proposal was not all acceptable to the Plaintiff. It has been further stated that the Plaintiff had paid the property tax arrears to the tune of Rs.20,610/- for the period from 1998-1999 to 201502016 and therefore, the Plaintiff is also entitled to 50% of the said amount.