The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in the suit property, as well as the limitations on the relief of permanent injunction based on the plaintiff's entitlement as per the preliminary decree.

1. The suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/2 share in the suit property.

The case of the plaintiff in CS No.1046 of 2008 is as follows:

2. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. According to the plaintiff, property situate at Old No.22 New No.42 Bagirathiammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 17, an extent of 2 grounds 1112 sq.ft. belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant, viz. late R.Subramania Iyer. By a partition deed dated 23.12.1976, the legal heirs of the deceased R.Subramania Iyer, had divided the properties among themselves. In the said partition the property subject matter of the present suit was allotted to the paternal uncle of the plaintiff and the defendant by name R.S.Lakshminarasimhan @ R.S.Manohar and the property at Old Door No.21, Ne Door No.44 in Bhagirathiammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 measuring 2 grounds and 678 sq. ft. was allotted to the father of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is claimed that the plaintiff and the defendant had jointly purchased the suit property which was allotted to their paternal uncle under a sale deed dated 04.11.2004. According to the plaintiff, the funds for the said purchase were raised by the sale of joint properties Virugambakkam and Anakaputhur villages apart from the borrowings from HDFC Bank. It is also claimed that the suit property had been let out to a tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.45,000/- and the arrangement between the parties is that the tenant will pay the monthly rent in the joint account of the parties and the same will paid over to HDFC Bank towards the equated monthly installments of the loan availed for purchase of the property by the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant alone is handling the affairs of schedule mentioned property and he is in possession of all the documents like Bank Pass Book, Cheque Book etc. The plaintiff is kept in dark of the affairs relating to the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff would claim that HDFC Bank has revised the monthly EMI from Rs.35,954/- to Rs.60,785/- per month with effect from August 2008 and the defendant is liable to bare 50% of the enhanced EMI also. On the above contentions the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 06.08.2008 demanding partition, which was replied to by the defendant on 18.08.2008 with false and untenable contentions. While the defendant had admitted that the plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property, he has not chosen to come forward to agree for the partition. Hence, the plaintiff had come forward with the above suit, seeking partition of his 1/2 share in the suit property.

4. The suit is resisted by the defendant, inter alia contending that the claim of the plaintiff that he is kept in the dark about the affairs of the property is false. The defendant would claim that both the parties have given filled up post dated cheque in favour of the HDFC Bank for payment of installments due to the Bank. All documents relating to the property has been deposited in the Bank and the plaintiff has been furnished copies of the same. The defendant would admit that the revised EMI will have to meet by the parties in equal share. The defendant would also contend that he is paying his 1/2 share of the excess amount payable over and above the rental income. The defendant would claim that the plaintiff had assured that he would pay 5% of the rental income to the defendant for managing the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff regarding payment of the Property Tax is denied by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant would contend that there is no cause of action for the suit and seeks for dismissal of the suit.

5. It is also the claim of the plaintiff that the contentions in paragraph 12 to 14 of the plaint has been made with a view to side track the Issues involved in the other suit which ha