Is the 4th Defendant as claimed in the companynter eligible for 36/90 share?
To prove the case, plaintiff has examined himself as W.1 and marked documents Ex.
A. S.L.P. C No.4677 of 2008 5 In this suit the Plaintiff filed P1 to P5 documents.
Certain facts number in dispute are as under A. S.L.P. C No.4677 of 2008 2 The appellant is real sister of respondents, being son and daughters of late Sh.
For such other relief or reliefs as this Honble companyrt may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
To companyclude, the learned Single Judge recorded the following findings since I have companye to the companyclusion that there are numberother properties apart from the suit property, the substantial question of law that have been formulated by the appellant only on facts and numbersubstantial question of law has arisen for companysideration in the Second Appeal.
A.V. Venkataraman, who died in the year 1961 intestate.
Since the dispute companyld number be resolved, even after exchange of numberices, respondent No.1 as plaintiff, filed a suit in the companyrt of Addl.
Cost award to the Plaintiff?
After appreciation of evidence available on record, the suit of respondent No.1 plaintiff was decreed in the following terms Finally, Plaintiff, 2nd Defendant, 4th Defendant each to 6/20 share in the suit property and 1st and 3rd Defendants each 1/20 share in the suit property is the preliminary decree, is decided and delivered.
Grounds urged A. S.L.P. C No.4677 of 2008 6 in her written statement before the trial companyrt were attacked and hammered in the Appeal.
Sub Judge at Chengalpattu registered as O.S.No.666 of 2001 claiming the following decree A. S.L.P. C No.4677 of 2008 3 a passing a preliminary decree for partition of plaintiffs 6/20 share in the suit property, to appoint an advocate companymissioner to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds to pass a final decree and while passing preliminary decree and final decree and deliver separate possession of the suit property.
A. S.L.P. C No.4677 of 2008 8 The learned Single Judge of the High Court did number formulate any substantial question of law but companysidered the same as mentioned hereinabove.
The present appellant who was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the suit, filed the written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff respondent No.1 herein and further submitted as under That some of the neighbours like Mr. Ranganathan and Mr. Murugan, Dhanammal have encroached upon the land and, therefore, the plaintiff should also seek their eviction.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by trial companyrt, appellant herein was companystrained to file appeal before the Principal District Judge at Chengalpattu.
On the strength of the pleadings of the aforesaid parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues Is the plaintiff eligible for a share of 6/20?
Apart from this, the appellant herein further averred that she has spent companysiderable amount of money, material and labour for the protection, upkeep and improvements of the suit property and, therefore, she is entitled to be reimbursed to that extent.
D 1 to D 17.
Since there arose dispute between the parties with regard to ancestral property left behind by late V. Venkataraman, the appellant was companystrained to send a legal numberice to the respondents on 8.6.1998 claiming partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/5th share.
Plaintiff and the Defendants relationships being companysidered, also the nature of the case being kept in mind, their companyts must be borne by themselves only it is ordered.
Consequently, the M.P. is closed.
During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3, who was a spinster, died.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed in the Second Appeal, appellant defendant No.4 is before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.
The first appellate companyrt further numbered that appellant has number led any evidence as to how she is entitled to 36/90th share and how she has worked out the said figure.
Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein, arrayed as defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit filed their respective written statement as one set denying the companytentions raised by the plaintiff.
Is the partition affected by the encroachments referred by the 4th Defendant and also other items of the properties?
Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt came to be affirmed.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A No.1168 of 2007, decided on 1.11.2007, arising from the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.39 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu on 20.11.2006, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree passed by Additional Sub Judge, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.666 of 2001 decided on 27.7.2004 has been companyfirmed, is before us, challenging the same on variety of grounds.
She further submitted that suit is bad for partial partition as plaintiff has number included other properties of her father and mother, that is 1 plot No.3 of 185 Adyarthankal in fathers name 2 plot A. S.L.P. C No.4677 of 2008 4 No.2 of 195 Adyarthankal in the mothers name and 3 Death cum service benefits of father.
His wife Rathna, mother of the parties also died on 15.3.1996 intestate.
Issues addressed 1 to 4.
4th Defendant filed D1 to D 17 documents.
Appellant, still feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, filed Second Appeal, in the High Court which also came to be dismissed.
Whether the finding of the companyrt below that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit property is companyrect in the absence of any other finding to that effect?
Respondent No.1 suitably replied to the same.
In the said partition, apart from the suit property, father and mother of parties were allotted plots No.2 and 3 shown in greater details in the deed of partition.
P 1 to P 5 while the present appellant arrayed as defendant No.4 examined herself and marked documents Ex.
A share of 6/20 to Defendant 2, and 1/20 share to 1st and 3rd defendant are eligible?
