The properties inherited from the grandmother are individual properties, not belonging to the Partnership Firm, as established by the Will and settlement deed.

JUDGMENT :

(P. Velmurugan, J.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the appeal. The appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit properties. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, he has filed the present appeal.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff as set out in the plaint before the Trial Court is as follows:-

The appellant and the respondent are the brothers and owners of the suit properties. The suit properties originally belonged to one Ammani Ammal, who obtained title through settlement deed, dated 24.10.1972 and the said Ammani Ammal constructed a Cinema Theatre and while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed her last Will in favour of the appellant and the respondent on 03.01.1975. Thereafter, the said Ammani Ammal died on 19.03.1992. After her demise, her Will came into force. Thereafter, the appellant and the respondent were managing the property jointly and for their convenience "C" Form licence under the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Act was obtained in favour of the appellant's wife and the respondent's son Nandhakumar. The appellant and the respondent have already entered into a partnership deed with their respective family members. The said Partnership Firm was not registered and the suit property was not at all transferred as the assets of the said Partnership Firm. The said Partnership Firm was allowed to continue without infringing the rights of the appellant in the suit property. The appellant and his family members have already sent representations and notice to the respondent and the family members of the respondent and the District Collector and the Commercial Tax Officer, informing them their intention to dissolve the Firm and their objections to the renewal of the "C" Form licence. The appellant has also reserved his rights to file the suit against the members of the respondent's family for rendition of accounts of the dissolved Partnership Firm separately. Now, the respondent is attempting to lease out the suit property and also attempting to encumber the suit property. Since the appellant is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property, he filed the suit for partition.

3. The case of the respondent/defendant as set out in the written statement before the Trial Court is as follows:-

(i) The vacant site of the suit property belonged to Ammani Ammal and she acquired the title by virtue of a settlement deed dated 24.10.1972 and the said Ammani Ammal also executed a registered Will, dated 03.01.1975. The father of the respondent, Thangaraj Pillai was employee of Southern Railways and he is the eldest son of Ammani Ammal. A Touring Theatre was run at Vaiyampatti in the name and style of M/s Ram Mohan Touring Talkies. Similarly, few other Touring Talkies were also run at various places like Viralimalai, Puthanatham, Manapparai. All those Touring Talkies were established and run only out of the investment by Thangaraj Pillai. Since he was an employee of Southern Railways, the licences were obtained in the name of Ammani Ammal and Rathinathammal. Since the said Thangaraj Pillai wanted to establish a permanent Cinema Theatre, he decided to construct a pucca Cinema Theatre over the suit property and run the business as a Partnership Firm. A Partnership Firm was constituted in the name and style of M/s Theatre Thangaraja on 11.06.1975. Thangaraj Pillai had constructed a Theatre out of his own resources and borrowings. The Partnership Firm had availed loan from Tamil Nadu Film Development Corporation Ltd. The licence was obtained in the name of the mother of the appellant and the respondent. Thangaraj Pillai was looking after the management and running of the business with effective assistance of the respondent. After his retirement, the father of the appellant and the respondent devoted his full time in the said business till his death. The vacant site of the property alone belonged to Ammani Ammal and the superstructures existing th