B.CHITTI BABU Vs. C.ABILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant/respondent in the final decree proceedings is the appellant before this Court. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as in the Trial Court. The brief resume of the facts that have culminated in the filing of the above Second Appeal are as follows:

(2.) The plaintiff, minor son represented by his natural guardian, mother had filed the suit O.S.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri, seeking for a partition of his half share in the suit schedule properties against the defendant, his father. It was the case of the plaintiff that the properties were ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendant and that the defendant had fallen into bad ways and had been spending money to meet his extravagant living style and for which purpose he had started borrowing heavily and to settle these loans the defendant was alienating the ancestral properties in which the plaintiff also had a right.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the property had been allotted to the defendant under a compromise decree entered into in the suit O.S.No.334 of 1992 which was instituted by the sisters of the defendant against the defendant, his brother and mother for partition. Thereafter, the matter was compromised and under the compromise decree dated 29.04.1998. The suit schedule property had fallen into the share of the defendant. The plaintiff would contend that on 26.12.2001 he had issued a notice to the defendant and to the creditors warning them from entering into any transaction with reference to the suit schedule properties. Since there was no response the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.