JUDGMENT

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.9129 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. He filed the suit for partition of the suit property into 15 equal shares and to allot six such share to him.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The suit property bearing Old No.4, New No.2, Dharmaraja Koil Street, Choolai, Chennai, measuring 401 sq.ft. within the boundaries stated therein originally belonged to one Subbarayalu Naidu. His only son T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu inherited the property after the death of his father Subbarayalu Naidu during the year 1939. T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu died on 09.12.1978 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The eldest son of the deceased T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu, namely Rajendran, embraced Christianity and also relinquished all his rights in the suit property. The younger son of Late T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu namely Sathendra also died during the year 2002 as a bachelor. Therefore, both Rajendran and Sathendra are not added as parties to the present suit. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are son and daughter respectively of T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu. The defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and daughters of deceased Ahalya who is also the daughter of T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu. The father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death on 09.12.1978. The plaintiff and the 5th defendant discharged the mortgage loan obtained by T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu during his life time. In fact the plaintiff and the 5th defendant spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- for safeguarding the property and for paying taxes to the Government. Now the superstructure over the suit property is in dilapidated condition and though the plaintiff requested the defendants for partition of the suit property they evaded. Hence the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following grounds :

1) The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

2) It is false to contend that the plaintiff and the 5th defendant spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- for safeguarding the suit property and for paying taxes to various authorities of the Government.

3) Since the 1st defendant is one of the legal heirs of Late T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu, she is entitled to get 1/5 share in the suit property and similarly defendants 2 to 4 together entitled to get another 1/5 share and the defendants 5 & 6 are entitled to 1/5 share each in the suit property.

4) As per Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, where a Hindu by conversion to another religion, children born to him / her after such conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens and in the instant case succession opened on the death of T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu on 09.12.1978 and on the date of death of Rajendran on

20.09.2003.

5) There is no proof that the deceased Rajendran converted to Christianity.

6) The plaintiff's claim of 6/15 share in the suit property is incorrect as per the Hindu Succession Act.

7) The 5th defendant discharged the mortgage loan on 09.08.1956 and on the principles of equity, the 5th defendant is entitled to get compensation for the same by way of adjustment by other sharers of the suit property.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit property as prayed for ?

2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3) Whether the 5th defendant is entitled for compensation and adjustment by other sharers in the suit property?

4) To what relief?

6. In the trial Court, the plaintiff exa