Advocates:
['M/S C JAGADISH', '', 'NO', 'L C HIGH CT CH', 'S R VARUN KARTHIK', 'K P SURESH KUMAR', 'S UMA MAHESWARI', 'N C ASHOK KUMAR', 'M/S M ARUL MANGAI', '', 'SOLE DEFT W/S FILED ; REPLY STATEMENT FILED', 'CH', 'RD ANNA NAGAR WEST EXTN', 'AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE', 'NO', 'MATHURA FLATS', 'FOR DEFT -D NO', 'G KAVITHA']

C.S.No.29 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 11.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

C.S.No.29 of 2018

A.Ganesan

.. Plaintiff

/versus/

A.Paramasivan

.. Defendant

This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rules 1 & 2 of the

Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of

C.P.C., prayed for a judgment and decree against the Defendant:-

i).to a preliminary judgment and decree for partition and

separate possession of the suit schedule 'A' property into two equal

shares and allocate one share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds;

ii).to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the Suit 'A'

schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 1

share to the plaintiff;

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S.No.29 of 2018

iii).for permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men,

agents, servants or anyone authorized by him from interfering with the

plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule

property;

iv).for permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men,

agents, servants or anyone authorized by him from interfering with the

plaintiff's enjoyment of the amenities of water, electricity, drainage,

common areas, staircase, passage and parking in the suit 'A' schedule

property.

v).for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to

demolish/remove the temporary hardboard partition in the ground floor

morefully described in the schedule 'B' hereunder;

vi).for costs of the suit.

For Plaintiff

: Mr.C.Jagadish

For Defendant

: Ms.Arulmangai

2/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S.No.29 of 2018

JUDGMENT

The Suit has been filed by the elder son of Angu Mudaliar

against his own brother seeking partition and separate possession of 1/2

share in the suit schedule property, which is situated at Door No.220,

Alwarpet Street, (formerly Pillaiyar Koil Street), Teynampet, Chennai -

600 018, admeasuring 2523 sq.ft., together with building in the ground,

first and second floor as described in the schedule to the plaint.

2.The plaintiff also complained that the defendant had put up a

partition in the ground floor and that had been described as B - schedule,

but it formed part of the property. It had been stated that the property had

been purchased by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant in the

name of Chinnammal who was the first wife by a Sale Deed dated

02.07.1938 registered as Document No.1584 of 1938 in the office of the

Sub-Registrar, Mylapore. It is further stated that Angu Mudaliar, the

father of the plaintiff and the defendant had three wives. The first wife

was Chinnammal and through her, a son, Natarajan and a daughter,

Vinayagammal were born. The second wife was Krishnaveni. She died

3/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S.No.29 of 2018

without begetting any children. The third wife was Kanthammal and

through her, the plaintiff and the defendants were born.

3.It is stated that Vinayagammal, the daughter of Chinnammal

had executed a Release Deed in favour of Angu Mudaliar and her brother

Natarajan and also in favour of Kanthammal, the mother of the plaintiff

and the defendant, and also in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant,

releasing her right in the subject property for consideration of Rs.200/-

by Release Deed dated 25.07.1960 registered as Document No.1391 of

1960 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore.

4.Thereafter, a family partition was effected on 16.09.1970

which was registered as Document No.1683 of 1970 again in the office

of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, by which Natarajan, son of Chinnammal

was allotted 1632 sq.ft on the rear side of the property and was also

permitted to use a passage of 5 ½ feet. The plaintiff and the defendant

and their mother were allotted 2523 sq.ft on the front side. That 2523

sq.ft., of land and building is the subject matter of the present suit for

partition between t