Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
P. Balakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
P. Baskaran & Ors. - Respondents
A.S.(MD)No.96 of 2009
Decided On : 29-01-2019
Partition Suit - Property Dispute - Civil Procedure Code - [O.S.No.218 of 2004, O.S.No.1 of 2007, O.S.No.1866 of 2004, Tr.O.P.No.68 of 2005] - The court discussed the entitlement of shares, construction costs, trial procedure, and jurisdiction. The judgment was based on the evidence presented and the failure to prove sole contribution to construction costs. The appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a partition suit filed by the plaintiff, claiming a share in a property jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants contested the claim, arguing that they had borne the entire construction cost and the plaintiff and the second defendant had not contributed to the construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/3rd share in the property. The court also found that the second defendant was entitled to a 1/3rd share. The court concluded that the appellant failed to prove sole contribution to construction costs and that the trial procedure was not vitiated.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to shares, construction costs, trial procedure, jurisdiction, and alteration of the trial judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure to prove sole contribution to construction costs and the absence of procedural flaws in the trial.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. Heard Mr. A. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T.C.S. Thillai Nayagam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.218 of 2004 dated 22.04.2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.3), Madurai.
3. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the appellant herein is the first defendant and the respondents 2 to 5 herein are the defendants 2 to 5 in the suit. The first respondent herein has filed a partition suit in O.S.No.218 of 2004 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court III), Madurai. Another suit in O.S.No.1 of 2007 was filed by the first respondent herein before the learned District Munsif, Madurai Town. The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1866 of 2004 for measne profits before the learned District Munsif, Madurai. The appellant herein has filed a petition in Tr.O.P.No.68 of 2005 before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai to try all the three case in O.S.Nos.627 of 2004, 1866 of 2004 and 218 of 2004 jointly and the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai allowed the petition and transferred O.S.Nos.627 of 2004 and 1866 of 2004 to I Additional District Court, Madurai Town to be tried along with O.S.No.218 of 2004. Both the suits in O.S.No.627 and 1866 of 2004 were renumbered as O.S.No.1 of 2007 and 137 of 2006 respectively. Later all the three cases were transferred from the I Additional District Court to the Fast Track Court III, Madurai.
4. The first defendant in O.S.No.218 of 2004 filed a joint trial memo to try the suit along with O.S.Nos.137 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 together. The appellant herein has filed a petition in Tr.O.P.No.27 of 2008 to transfer the suits O.S.Nos.218 of 2004, 137 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 from Fast Track Court III to any other District Court. The petition was closed on 18.06.2008 stating that the Officer against whom the allegation were made has been transferred and the petition is closed. On 22.04.2008, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court III), Madurai passed a common Judgment in O.S.Nos.218 of 2004 and 1 of 2007. The defendants 1, 3 to 5 remained ex-parte and both the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Against the Judgment and Decree, the appellant has filed this appeal suit.
5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2004 is that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and another brother of plaintiff namely P.Subramaniam on a registered sale deed dated 30.01.1992, 03.02.1992, 04.03.1992 and 04.03.1992 respectively from Radhakrishnan, Gnanambal and Sathyabama individually and jointly. The suit property was purchased for a valuable consideration by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and one Subramaniam and they contributed equal share in the sale price. The joint family property was sold away by the four brothers in December 1990 and from that funds and with their savings, the four brothers purchased the suit property. At the time of purchase, the building was in a dilapidated condition. The plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 purchased undivided ¼ share of the elder brother namely Subramaniam through sale deeds dated 19.11.1993, 22.11.1993 and 24.11.1993 for a valuable consideration by contributing equally. After the purchase, the plaintiff and the defendants have demolished the old building and they contributed Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) each and constructed a new building. The “Grapravesam” was conducted on 06.02.1995 by printing invitation by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. The suit property comprises three floors, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The first defendant was permitted to let out the portion of the plaintiff to tenants as he was working in TVS at Bangalore. The first defendant let out two non resid
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
