JUDGMENT

The challenge is against the concurrent judgments in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition.

2. The case of the respondent is that she is the close friend of the appellant. They started a tailoring mart by name of "Rubala Tailors" in 1996, at Koothapakkam, Cuddalore. They earned more in tailoring mart, and started real estate business and the business of construction. Through these businesses, they earned more profit. They decided to purchase a house and jointly purchased a house on 05.11.2009. That is the suit property in this case. Then, they jointly constructed first floor from the profits of their businesses. They were living jointly in the suit property with their children. In January 2011, appellant without any reason drove the respondent from the suit property with the help of rowdies. Respondent is entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property. Therefore, this suit for partition and other reliefs.

3. The appellant filed written statement denying the averments that the suit property was purchased by the respondent and appellant jointly from the profit earned from their business. It is her specific case that she purchased the suit property with her own funds. To avoid income tax, respondent's name was included in the sale deed. Respondent has no means to contribute to the purchase. She was struggling to earn for a livelihood through tailoring business. It is true that appellant and respondent were living in the suit property with their children. Electricity connections in the suit property are in the name of the appellant and respondent. Respondent was paying electricity bill as a friend of the appellant. The building in the suit property was aged 28 years and was damaged. Appellant spent her own money for repairing the building and raising the first floor. Due to some differences of opinion, the respondent is living separately. Appellant also filed an additional written statement claiming that her husband died in a road accident and in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 1999 she was awarded a compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- with subsequent interest. She invested this compensation amount, in addition to her savings, jewels and income from real estate business to purchase the suit property. When she was taking treatment in an hospital on 15.12.2011, the respondent got an agreement and money from her by threat and coercion. The suit is not properly valued and no proper Court fee was paid. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent filed elaborate reply statement reiterating the averments made in the plaint, denying the averments made in the written statement and additional written statement. It is claimed that she had contributed 50% of the amount for purchasing the suit building. There was a compromise during the pendency of the suit and unregistered agreement of sale was entered into between the appellant and respondent on 15.12.2011. As per this agreement the sale price for her share was fixed at Rs.21,25,000/- and she received an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Thereafter, the appellant has not come forward to execute the sale deed.

5. On the basis of this pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues, i) Whether the suit property was purchased from the income derived from the businesses run by plaintiff and defendant or it was purchased by the defendant from her independent source of income?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the suit property?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mesne profits?

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction prayed for?

v) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

6. During the course of trial, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the respondent/plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B25 were marked on the side of the appellant/defendant. That apart Exhibit C1 was also marked.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge