A trial court should not mandate the payment of construction contributions at the preliminary decree stage in a partition suit; such adjustments and valuations regarding expenditures on suit properties are properly reserved for a comprehensive inquiry during final decree proceedings.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Rajasekar J.)

This Appeal Suit has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.33 of

2015, challenging the condition imposed on him of depositing a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- for getting his one-third share in the suit property.

2. The case of the plaintiff -appellant was that he was one of the sharers in the suit property and the other defendants were having two-third share. The one-third share belonged to him, as he inherited the same following the death of his mother – Saradhammal. Since the defendants refused him to enjoy the property, he filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction. The plaintiff also marked a Sale Deed, standing in the name of her mother. The defendants admitted the relationship, however, the first defendant had contended that she renovated and developed the building in the suit property, for which she incurred a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Hence, she claimed that she was entitled to more share in the suit property. Accordingly, she opposed the suit.

3. The Trial Court had framed an issue relating to entitlement of plaintiff’s one-third share and consequential relief of decree for permanent injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit to the extent that the plaintiff was entitled to one-third share in the suit property. The Trial Court also accepted the case of the first defendant that she had incurred a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs for constructing the building in the suit property, and thereby the plaintiff has to pay sum of Rs.1,33,000/- to the first defendant to get his share Accordingly, the decree was passed.

4. Aggrieved over the said direction for payment of Rs.1,33,000/-, the plaintiff has approached this Court with this appeal.

5. The point that arises for consideration before this Court is, whether the trial Court’s direction to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- to first defendant was valid and sustainable ?

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff also contributed some amounts for renovating the house, as also the other sharers, and, without proper enquiry, giving a direction to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- to the first defendant was based on no evidence and the same was not necessary. Accordingly, she prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the defendants had exhibited documents to show that they incurred expenses for renovating and constructing the building in the suit property and, after considering the same, the trial Court had decreed the suit, directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- to the first defendant. However, she fairly submitted that regarding the payment and the expenses incurred for construction of the house, separate enquiry may be made by the trial Court in the final decree proceedings, as the final decree application is pending before the trial Court.

8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the material available on record.

9. Though before the trial Court two exhibits were marked on behalf of the defendants, such as Salary Certificate of the plaintiff and Detailed Estimate for renovating the building and also a Diary to show the details of the expenses met by the first defendant, we are of the view that no proper enquiry was conducted by the trial Court regarding their validity and the manner in which all the expenses were incurred by the first defendant. We are also of the view that a separate enquiry in this regard has to be conducted. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,000/-