1 to 3 are the sisters of the Appellant.
Appeal Suit No.
The Appellant filed a written statement claiming a share of 36/90.
The Appellant further submitted that the other findings on other aspects by the High Court were unwarranted.
15.03.1989 by which the daughter of a companyarcener shall by birth became a companyarcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and was given the same rights in the companyarcenery property which the son had.
The above judgment was passed by the Trial Court on re examination of the material on record after finding that there was numberdocumentary proof of availability of any additional assets for partition.
1, 2 and 3 herein were brought on record as LRs of the original Plaintiff on 21.07.2010 as Plaintiffs No.
3041 of 2014 and 3042 of 2014 were filed by Respondents No.
The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu allowed both the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in O.S. No.666 of 2001 dated 08.09.2010 and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court.
The Appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras by filing Second Appeal No.1168 of 2007 which was also dismissed on 01.11.2007.
C.M.A. Nos.
9 of 2013.
1 and 3 in the suit in the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the judgment dated 09.07.2014 in A. S. 3 of 2011 and A. No.
4 and 5 herein Defendants No.
2, 3 and 4.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellant has filed the above Civil Appeals.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the Appellant filed Civil Appeal No.
It was held in the above judgment that the directions given by this Court in Civil Appeal No.5053 of 2009 were number companyplied with by the Trial Court as all the properties that were inherited by Sri A.V. Venkataraman by the partition deed dated 27.04.1954 were number included in the partition suit.
Sri A.V. Venkataraman died in 1961 leaving his wife Smt.
3 of 2011 was filed by Respondents No.
Defendants 1 and 3 married prior to the amendment and so they were entitled to 1/20 share.
1 and 2 herein Plaintiffs No.
According to the Plaintiff he was entitled to a share of 6/20, the Second and Fourth defendants 6/20 share each and First and Third defendants 1/20 share each of the suit property.
666 of 2001 filed by her brother Sri A. V. Venkataraman for partition and allotment of a share of 6/20 in the property in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
2 and 3 in the suit and C.M.A. Nos.3043 of 2014 and 3044 of 2014 were filed by Respondents No.
The Appellant preferred A.S. No.
The Appellant is the Fourth defendant in O.S. No.
A.V. Rathnabai, the Plaintiff and the defendants.
Defendants No.
4 and 5 herein who are Defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No.666 of 2001 and Appeal Suit No.9 of 2013 was filed by the Appellant herein in the Court of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, assailing the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in O. S. 666 of 2001 dated 08.09.2010.
The Additional Sub Judge, Chengalpattu by his judgment dated 27.07.2004 decreed the suit holding that the Plaintiff, the Second Defendant and the Fourth defendant Appellant were entitled to a share of 6/20 each and First and Third defendants were entitled to a share of 1/20 each in the suit property.
The Appellant married after the amendment and Defendant No.2 did number marry as she was paralyzed in an accident due to which they were entitled to 6/20 share.
It was averred in the plaint that the suit property was an ancestral property inherited by the father of the Plaintiff, Sri A.V. Venkataraman, by a partition deed dated 27.04.1954.
The High Court allowed the CMAs, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and granted a preliminary decree in the suit for partition by declaring that the Plaintiffs were entitled for 5/8 share jointly and Defendants 1, 3 and 4 were entitled to 1/8 share in the suit house property.
