Court emphasized the necessity of including all relevant properties in partition suits and the importance of allowing full cross-examination to uphold justice.

JUDGMENT :

C.SARAVANAN, J.

This Original Side Appeal has been filed by the 2^nd Defendant in C.S.No.112 of 2021.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents are the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs in C.S.No.112 of 2021. The 3^rd Respondent is the 1^st Defendant in the civil suit. The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents herein (1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs) are the sisters of the Appellant herein (2^nd Defendant). The 3^rd Respondent is the mother of the Appellant herein (2^nd Defendant) and the 1^st and 2^nd respondents herein (1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs).

3. The above civil suit was filed for partitioning 17 properties in the schedule to the plaint in C.S.No.112 of 2021. In the plaint, the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents have not brought all the properties for partition.

4. It is the case of the Appellant (2^nd Defendant) that the 1^st Respondent herein (1^st Plaintiff) was examined as P.W.1 and was partly cross-examined. The case was thereafter listed before the Court on 08.04.2022 on which date, the Impugned Preliminary Decree has been passed without allowing the Appellant (2^nd Defendant) to cross-examine the 1^st Respondent herein (1^st Plaintiff).

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that in Paragraph No.4 of the plaint itself, the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents herein (1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs) have clearly stated they have brought only the schedule mentioned properties that were held by their father in his own name within the ambit of the suit and in case they learn about any other property held by their father, they reserved their right to include such properties also by seeking amendment of the plaint. Paragraph No.4 of the plaint is reproduced below:-

“4. The plaintiffs state that their father, Mr.M.Ramalingam expired on 16^th January, 2017, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs' father, Late Mr.M.Ramalingam had acquired several immovable properties at various places throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, out of his self earnings, which are described in the schedule mentioned hereunder. It is pertinent to note that some properties were purchased by the plaintiffs' deceased father in the name of the defendants, either independently or jointly with his own funds. However, the plaintiffs' have brought only the schedule mentioned properties that were held by their father in his own name within the ambit of this suit and in case the plaintiffs' learn about any other property held by their father, they reserve their right to include such properties also by seeking amendment of the plaint.”

6. It is the case of the Appellant (2^nd Defendant) that apart from the above 17 properties in the schedule to the plaint, there was a dispute with respect to another property which also ought to have been subject matter of the above partition suit, in respect of which there were collateral proceedings.

7. It is the case of the Appellant (2^nd Defendant) that a suit in O.S.No.197 of 1997 was filed by one third party Ramaniammal against one K.Raja the 2^nd Respondent's (2^nd Plaintiff) husband and the elder brother of K.Raja for specific performance and that the case was contested by the father of the Appellant (2^nd Defendant), 1^st and 2^nd Respondents (1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs) as Power of Attorney of the Defendants.

8. In this connection, the Appellant (2^nd Defendant) has also filed C.M.P.Nos.16219 and 16220 of 2025 for the following reliefs:-