Advocates:
['M/S K ASHOK KUMAR', '', 'K GANESAN', 'P SURESHBABU', '', 'SOLE REPDT - LEFT', 'PVT NOTICE', 'SERVICE AWAITED', 'SOLE RESPDT - NOTICE SENT', 'NOTICE ORDERED ON', 'CAVEATOR', 'K MOHAMED HUSSEN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 21.01.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 09.02.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

S.A.No.776 of 2021

and

C.M.P.No.15134 of 2021

G.Gowri

...Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

N.Rupla

...Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated

29.10.2020 in A.S.No.6 of 2019 passed by the learned District

Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment

and decree dated 14.12.2018 in O.S.No.74 of 2011 passed by the

learned I Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.

For Appellant

: Mr.K.Ashok Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.P.Sureshbabu for caveator

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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 forw