Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
D. Rajalakshmi – Plaintiff
Versus
Chandralekha – Defendant
C.S. No. 821 of 2012
Decided On : 20-12-2016
For the Plaintiff : Mr. S. Vasudevan.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiffs to half share in the suit property and movable properties, as evidenced by the partition deed and release deed, as well as the acknowledgment of the adoption of the second plaintiff as the daughter of the first plaintiff and her husband.
Headnote:
Partition - Property - The court passed a preliminary decree for partition to divide the suit property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the suit property and movable properties, as evidenced by the partition deed and release deed. The defendants were set ex-parte for not appearing in person or through counsel. The court also noted the adoption of the second plaintiff as the daughter of the first plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiffs were granted a preliminary decree for partition and no costs were awarded due to the relationship between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for passing a preliminary decree for partition and mesne profits. The suit property was originally allotted to K.L. Vedachalam and his sons, who later partitioned the property among themselves. After the death of certain family members, the properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs, being entitled to half share in the suit property and movable properties, sought partition.
Finding of the Court:
The court passed a preliminary decree for partition, granting the plaintiffs half share in the suit property and movable properties. The defendants were set ex-parte for not appearing in person or through counsel. The court also acknowledged the adoption of the second plaintiff as the daughter of the first plaintiff and her husband. No costs were awarded due to the relationship between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the plaintiffs to half share in the suit property and movable properties, as well as the partition of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the suit property and movable properties based on the partition deed and release deed. The court also considered the adoption of the second plaintiff as the daughter of the first plaintiff and her husband.
Final Decision: The court granted a preliminary decree for partition, dividing the suit property into two equal shares and allotting one such share to the plaintiffs. No costs were awarded due to the relationship between the parties.
1. The suit is filed for passing a preliminary decree for partition and also for mesne profits.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:
The suit property was originally allotted to one K.L. Vedachalam and his sons K.V. Durairaj and K.V. Velmurugan and they have partitioned the property among themselves. A deed of release dated 06.06.1985, the said K.L. Vedhachalam and his son K.V. Velmurugan husband of the first defendant and father of the second and third defendants relinquished their respective 1/3rd right over the interest and title in the property to K.V. Durairaj, husband of the fist plaintiff. The husband of the first plaintiff K.V. Durairaj died on 25.05.2003 and K.L. Vedachalam died on 20.12.1995. K.V. Velmurugan also passed away in the year 1994. After their death, the properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and the defendants. The second plaintiff is the adopted daughter of the first plaintiff and her husband K.V. Durairaj. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the suit property and also in the movable properties and mesne profits. Hence, the suit.
3. Though notice was served on the defendants long back, they have not chosen either to appear in person or through counsel. Therefore, they were set ex-parte by this Court on 04.04.2016.
4. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the records.
6. P.W.1, in her evidence has stated that the property originally belonged to one Loganatha Mudaliar. Under Ex.P.1 Partition Deed, the said Loganatha Mudaliar and his two sons were allotted certain joint family properties. Subsequently, under Ex.P.2, K.L. Vedachalam, one of the son of Loganatha Mudaliar and his sons K.V. Durairaj, husband of the first plaintiff and K.V. Velmurugan partitioned the property among themselves. She has also spoken about the subsequent release in favour of her husband by K.L. Vedachalam and his son K.V. Velmurugan under Ex.P.3 release deed. Since the properties are not partitioned, two branches of the family, after the death of the elder members in their family, seeks partition of their half share in the suit schedule properties. She has also stated that the second plaintiff is the adopted daughter of herself and her husband. To prove the same Ex.P.4 is also filed.
7. Ex.P.1 is partition deed of the year 1942 which proves partition between Loganatha Mudaliar and his sons K.L. Vedachalam and K.L. Vedagiri. Ex.P.2 another partition deed dated 19.05.1967, proves the partition between K.L. Vedachalam and K.V. Duraisamy and K.V. Velmurugan. Ex.P.3 is the release deed executed by one K.L. Vedachalam and K.V. Velmurugan in favour of K.V. Durairaj releasing their 1/3rd share in the property bearing Plot No. 3, Venkateswara Nagar, Adyar in S. No. 76/1 T.S. 19/13 measuring 3037 Sq. ft. Ex.P.4 has been filed to prove the adoption of the second plaintiff as their daughter. Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the death certificate of K.C. Vedachalam and legal heir of certificate of K.L. Vedhachalam. Ex.P.7 legal heir certificate also shows that K.V. Durairaj died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heir. Ex.P.10 legal notice has been sent by the plaintiffs for partition of the suit property. The legal notice has been received by the defendants and acknowledgments have also been filed. The above documents clearly proves the case of the plaintiffs and their half share in the suit property and they are entitled for partition of their half share in the suit property. Though the plaintiffs have claimed mesne profits, it can be worked out in the final decree proceedings.
8. Accordingly, a preliminary decree is passed for partition to divide the suit property in to two equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs. Considering, the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.
