The entitlement to partition and allotment of shares is based on the legal heirs' entitlement and admission of title, and objections based on unrelated claims and lack of evidence are deemed unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:The Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 & 41-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Preliminary Decree and Judgment, dated 30.11.2022 in O.S.No.201 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpet.)

K. Rajesaker, J.,

1. This Appeal has been filed by the defendant, challenging the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.201 of 2009, dated 30.11.2022 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpet, wherein the trial Court has passed Preliminary Decree for partition and consequential injunction against the defendant.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:

(a) for passing preliminary decree to divide the suit schedule mentioned properties into three equal shares and allot two such shares to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds.

(b) for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to suggest the mode of division for passing of final decree.

(c) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents or any person claiming through him from in any manner altering the superstructure or dealing with Item II of suit schedule property.

(d) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit; and

(e) for granting such other further relief, deemed, fit, proper just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the wife, the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are daughters, and the defendant is the son of late A.S.Kandasamy. The first item of the suit property originally belonged to one Pachaiammal, the mother of A.S.Kandasamy and she bequeathed the same in favour of his son as per registered Will dated 29.05.1992. After the death of Pachaiammal, the said property was in possession and enjoyment of A.S.Kandasamy. He has also purchased the second item of the suit property and from his own funds he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. During his life time, the defendant and his wife has not treated, the plaintiffs No.1 and Mr.A.S.Kandasamy properly, neglected and forced plaintiff No.1 out of Item No.2 of the suit property. A.S.Kandasamy died on 12.01.2009, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendant as his legal heirs.

5. After the death of A.S.Kandasamy, the defendant, along with his wife, have removed several valuable documents and jewels purchased by A.S.Kandasamy and refused to handover the same to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have issued legal notice dated 07.04.2009, to return back the stolen articles and also for partition of the suit properties, for which, the defendant has issued reply notice and refused for partition. Hence, the plaintiffs have come forward to file the suit by including the movable properties as item No.3 and claimed allotment of each 1/3 share.

6. The case of the defendant is that he admits the averments with regard to the title of the first and second item of the suit properties and also the relationship between the parties. The defendant was always been ready to take care of his mother, the first plaintiff herein, but due to intervention of the second and third plaintiffs, the dispute among the family has reached beyond the point of no return. He has denied that he has taken away the valuables and documents from the house of the plaintiffs and alleged that the first and third plaintiffs have taken away the valuables and documents of his father. He has also alleged that during the month of August 2009, the plaintiffs have attempted to sell the “Gun” belonging to the defendant''s father which was already deposited by the defendant on 09.02.2009 in the Hindustan Armory, Chennai and one another Air Rifle was taken away by the third plaintiff and the same is in her custody