JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2013 in O.S.No.8475 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court. He has filed the above appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree granted by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.8475 of 2011 dated 04.12.2013. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent claiming partition and separate possession of his 1/2 share in the suit schedule property. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the trial Court.

2. The facts in brief which are essential for deciding the above Appeal are here-in-below narrated :

PLAINTIFF’S CASE:

The plaintiff would submit that he and the defendant who are the siblings had been carrying on business in the name and style of “Om Murugan Agency” with each of them contributing equally to the Partnership. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1995, the defendant insisted on purchasing house property from out of the joint funds of the Firm and accordingly, on 06.02.1995, he had purchased the suit 1st item of the property in his name.

3. As soon as the plaintiff had come to know about the same he had questioned the defendant who replied that it would be divided between the parties once the loan amount of Rs.3,30,000/- was cleared. The plaintiff would further submit that the above terms and the factum of the Partnership has been reduced into writing in an Agreement dated 10.03.1995. It is also the case of the plaintiff that when he had sought for division of the said property as per the terms of the Agreement dated 10.03.1995 the defendant had refused to partition the same.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit 2nd item of the property was jointly allotted to himself and the defendant by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board though the plaintiff has sought for a partition with reference to this property as well the defendant did not come forward to do so. On the contrary, he had demolished the same and put up a new superstructure. The plaintiff would contend that the defendant was not rendering accounts and therefore, the above suit.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT:

5. The defendant had filed a Written Statement inter alia denying the plaintiff’s claim with regard to the partnership business. It is his categoric case that there is no partnership business and that “Om Murugan Agency” was a sole proprietary concern started by him. He would further submit that he had come to Chennai 43 years back and had toiled hard to help his siblings financially. Apart from the plaintiff and the defendant, there were two other children. He would contend that the plaintiff had come to Chennai for further studies in the year 1991-1992 and he was residing with the defendant. When the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotment was procured the plaintiff was clandestinely got his name included in the Allotment Letter. He would further submit that the area under the Allotment Deed covered was only an extent of 36 sq.mt. The respondent had purchased a further extent on 30.06.1995. Thereafter, he had put up a pucca building. It is in the said building that the plaintiff was doing business and the license stood in the name of his wife. He further contended that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property for over 15 years as his own. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had framed the following issues on perusing the pleadings of either party:

(1) Whether the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotted the 2nd item of the suit property to the plaintiff and the defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant are in joint possession of the suit property?

(3) Whether the suit property is divisible into 2 equal shares and whether the plai