Madras High Court
A.Gajaharini vs / on 25 November, 2022
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
C.S.No.202 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No.202 of 2020
A.Gajaharini
.. Plaintiff
/versus/
1.B.Ganapathy
2.Lakshmanan
3.The Manager
Hi-Tech Diagnostics Center,
No.57, Arunachala Naicken Street,
Chintadripet,
Chennai – 600 002.
4.Karthik (Given up)
5.Raheela
6.R.Lakshmi
7.Suresh
8.Cindrella
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.202 of 2020
9.Dhanasekar
10.E.Parasuram
11.Bhavani (Given up)
12.Kirankumar
13.Suresh
14.Thirumal
15.Priya (Given up)
16.Bhanu
17.Karthik
.. Defendants
Defendants 4, 11 and 15 are given up as per
order dated 12.02.2021 in A.No.1831 of
2020.
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:-
a).to pass a preliminary decree for partition by dividing the
schedule A and schedule B property into two equal shares by metes and
bounds and to allot 1/2 share of the said property to the plaintiff;
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.202 of 2020
b).consequently to pass a final decree by appointing an
advocate commissioner to identify and demarcate 1/2 share in schedule A
and schedule B property and allot the same to the plaintiff by giving her
separate possession of the same;
c).to pass a decree for mesne profits directing defendant no.1 to
pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards half the share of the rent
in respect of the schedule A and schedule B property received from
defendants 2 to 17 for the months of June 2020 and Jule 2020 and
continue to pay the plaintiff the said half a share of the rent every month
effective from August 2020 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent
per annum from the date of suit till realization;
For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For 1st defendant : Mr.N.Nirmalraj
JUDGMENT
The suit had been filed by a sister against her brother and also against the tenants who had been impleaded as 2nd to 17th defendants. The brother has been shown as the 1st defendant. He is the only necessary and proper party to the suit. There is no indication that any counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd to 17th defendants. As a matter of 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 fact, in A.No.1831 of 2020 by an order dated 12.02.2021, the 4 th, 11th and 15th defendants had been given up and that fact had been recorded.
2.The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the children of late M.Balasubramaniam and late B.Kalaiselvi. The properties involved in the litigation are two properties given as A schedule, in which there are two items, but it is accepted by both the learned counsels for the plaintiff and the 1st defendant that the two items form a contiguous building. There is also another property given as B schedule to the plaint.
3.The suit had been filed seeking partition by dividing A and B schedule properties into two equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one of the half share to the plaintiff and also to pass consequential final decree. A decree for mesne profits claiming a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from August 2020 together with interest was also sought holding that the 1st defendant was receiving rents from the A and B schedule properties.
4.In the plaint, it had been stated that the father and mother, M.Balasubramaniam and B.Kalaiselvi had jointly purchased the A 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 schedule property by two Sale Deeds dated 29.11.1982 and 13.07.1983 respectively, both registered as Document Nos.1498 of 1982 and 771 of 1983 respectively and both in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, Chennai. The plaintiff further stated that the father, M.Balusubramaniam, died intestate on 30.07.2014. It had been stated that the properties then came to be held by the mother B.Kalaiselvi. It was stated that the 1 st defendant was permitted to be in an occupation of a portion of the property in B schedule namely, the property at Old Door No.31, New Door No.57, Arunachalam Naicken Street, Chintadripet, Chennai.
5.It was also stated that there was an oral family arrangement among the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and their mother. By the said oral arrangement, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant relinquished their undivided 2/3 share in the B schedule by a Release Deed dated 23.02.2015 which was registered as Doc.No.483 of 2015 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, in favour of their mother, B.Kalaiselvi. It had been further stated that under the very same oral family arrangement, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant also relinquished their undivided 2/3 share in the property described in A-schedule in Door No.43, Kalavai Chetty 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 Street, Chintadripet, Chennai and in Door No.45, Kalavai Chetty Street, Chintadripet, Chennai, to the mother by a Release Deed dated 06.09.2018 which was registered as Doc.No.2159 of 2018 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, Chennai. It had been further stated that on execution of the two Release Deeds, the mother, B.Kalaiselvi became the absolute owner of the A and B schedule properties given in the plaint. The mother died on 20.06.2020.
6.It had been further claimed that even during the lifetime of the mother substantial portions of A and B schedule properties had been let out on tenancy to various tenants who had been impleaded as defendants in the suit. It had been stated that till she was alive, the mother was managing the property and was also collecting the monthly rents. It was stated that on her death, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant became entitled to an undivided 1/2 share in both the properties. It was stated that however the 1st defendant started to collect the rents from the 2nd to 17th defendants on and from June / July 2020. The plaintiff was not given any share from the rental income. A legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 11.07.2020 marking a copy to the tenants who have been 6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 impleaded as 2nd to 17th defendants asking for the rental income to be paid to her. The plaintiff claims the monthly rents received by the 1 st defendant would be Rs.1,80,000/- and claims one half of the said rental income every month. It was under these circumstances that the suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the A and B schedule properties and also seeking one half of the rental income derived from the properties.
7.The 1st defendant filed a written statement. In the said written statement, the relinquishment of the properties and the manner in which the property devolved absolutely to the mother had not been denied or disputed. It was however stated that the plaintiff was not entitled for one half share in the suit properties. It was stated that towards the marriage on 21.01.2009 of the plaintiff with Ashok Kumar, the father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- and had given about 150 sovereign of jewels and had also given cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. It had been stated that the 1st defendant had taken over the fishing wholesale business of the father. He took care of his father and mother and they lived together as a joint family. There was another brother who died on 14.10.2010.
7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020
8.It was stated that the father, prior to his death had decided to make an arrangement for the properties. Accordingly, it was claimed that under an oral arrangement or partition of the both Item Nos.1 and 2 in A schedule properties and the B schedule property were given to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was allotted other properties namely, property at Door No.14/11, Rathnammal 2nd Street, Asath Nagar, Aminjikarai, Chennai by a Settlement Deed dated 13.05.2013 registered as Doc.No.1731 of 2013 in the Sub-Registrar Office at Kodambakkam, and also vacant land measuring 3.83 acres at Panampakkam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk, Uthukottai Sub District, Arani by a Settlement Deed dated 21.04.2017 registered as Doc.No.833 of 2017 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Arani.
9.It had been stated that the 1 st defendant had taken a decision to transfer his right in the suit schedule property, particularly the B schedule property to his mother, with a view to build a house for her. It had been stated that the 1st defendant had put up the entire superstructure in the B schedule property out of his own income. The Release Deed mentioned in the plaint, executed by the plaintiff and by the 1 st defendant 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 were accepted as having been executed with intention to vest the property with the mother. It was also stated that the 1st defendant was managing the building in the name of his mother and using a small portion for his business and had let out other portions for tenancy. It was also stated that there was loss suffered owing to the demonetization and therefore, the Release Deed was executed with respect to A schedule properties.
10.It was also stated that the mother, suffered from Covid – 19 and was admitted in hospital and the 1st defendant claimed that he took care of all the medical expenses. But unfortunately, she died on 20.06.2020. It was also stated that the plaintiff had taken advantage and had also taken the jewels of the mother. It was stated that since the plaintiff had been sufficiently provided by allotment of a property and of land measuring 3.83 acres, the plaintiff cannot expect any share in the suit properties. It was stated that the oral arrangement by the father should be respected by the plaintiff also. In view of these statements made, the 1st defendant stated that the suit for partition and separate possession should be dismissed.
9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020
11.On the basis of the above pleadings, by order dated 30.06.2021, the following issues were framed for trial:
“1.Whether the plaintiff's mother was the absolute owner of the Schedule A and Schedule B property at the time of her death on 20.06.2020?
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be allotted half the share of Schedule A and Schedule B property after due partition?
3.Whether the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards half the share of the rent in respect of the Schedule A and Schedule B property received from the defendants 2 and 3, 5 to 10, 12 to 14 and 16 and 17 for the months of June 2020 and July 2020 and continue to pay the plaintiff the said half a share of the rent every month effective from August 2020 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of suit till realization?
10/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020
4.Whether the plaintiff has already got her share from family properties in Settlements Deed dated 13.05.2013 Doc.No.1731 of 2013 and 21.04.2017 Doc.No.833 of 2017 by her mother?
5.Whether the 1st defendant have built superstructure in suit schedule B property in his own hard earned money?
6.To what other relief the parties are entitled to?”
12.The parties were then invited to tender evidence. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. The wife of the 1st defendant examined herself as DW-1. The 1st defendant also examined, two other witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3.
13.The plaintiff, A.Gajaharini also marked Exs.P1 to P9. The plaintiff marked as Exs.P1 and P2, the certified copies of the Sale Deeds with respect to item Nos.1 and 2 of A schedule property and as Ex.P3, the certified copy of the Sale Deed and with respect to B schedule property. The Release Deeds by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 favour of the mother with respect to the A and B schedule properties were marked as Exs.P4 and P5. The Legal Heirship Certificate of the father, M.Balasubramaniam, was marked as Ex.P6 and the Death Certificate of the mother B.Kalaselvi was marked as Ex.P7. The office copy of the legal notice was marked as Ex.P8. The Legal Heirship Certificate of the mother was marked as Ex.P9.
14.On the side of the defendants, DW-1, G.Sasikala the wife of the 1st defendant marked Exs.D1 and D5. The copy of the Settlement Deeds in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the property at Aminjikarai and with respect to the land measuring 3.83 acres and also the copy of the legal notice dated 03.08.2020 were marked as Exs.D1, D2 and D3. The copy of the Encumbrance Certificates dated 21.09.2021 and 04.10.2021 were marked as Exs.D4 and D5.
15.The witness also filed additional proof affidavit and marked as Ex.D7, the purchase orders for construction materials and cash receipts with respect to B schedule property. The documents relating to purchase of marbles for construction of the building was marked as 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 Ex.D8. The approved building plan for B schedule property as on 25.02.2002 was marked as Ex.D9. The property tax assessment was marked as Ex.D10. The rental agreements and the advance amounts received from the various tenants were marked as Exs.D11 to D15. There were objections raised for marking of the said documents, but let me take the documents on record and examine the relevancy at the time of addressing that particular issue, particularly the issue relating to whether the 1st defendant had put up the construction in B schedule property.
16.As stated the 1st defendant had examined three other witnesses. DW-2 was Devarajan who was in the fish selling business and who was in the business with the father, M.Balasubramaniam and also a family friend of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also examined as DW-3, Ambika, the paternal aunt of the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. The 1st defendant also examined as DW-4, Ganesh, who was the son of younger brother of the father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
17.Heard arguments advanced by M.Radhakrishnan learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr.N.Nirmalraj, learned counsel for the 1st 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 defendant.
Issue No.1:
18.This issue is whether the plaintiff's mother was absolute owner of the A and B schedule properties, at the time of her death on 20.06.2020. In view of the evidence produced, particularly the fact that the Settlement Deeds had been executed by both the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant in favour of the mother both with respect to the A and B schedule properties, there can be no dispute or denial of the fact that at the time of her death, the mother, B.Kalaiselvi, was the absolute owner of A and B schedule properties. The issue is answered accordingly. Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5:
19.These issues will have to be taken up together, particularly in view of the stand taken by the 1st defendant that there had been an oral partition made by the father M.Balasubramaniam prior to his death. To evidence such oral partition, the 1st defendant relied on two Sale Deeds, which had been produced as Exs.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of a Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff which had been registered 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 as Document No.1731 of 2013 dated 13.05.2013 and Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the Settlement Deed again in favour of the plaintiff registered as Doc.No.833 of 2017 dated 21.04.2017.
20.It is the specific case of the 1 st defendant that in view of the said two properties having been settled in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had been given substantial properties and those properties had been settled to the plaintiff on the understanding that the 1 st defendant would be entitled to the A and B schedule properties.
21.However, if the 1st defendant were to be considered as the absolute owner or entitled to the A and B schedule properties, then the plaintiff need not have joined with him in executing Exs.P4 and P5. It is seen from Exs.P4 and P5 that both the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant had joined together in executing the Release Deed with respect to A and B schedule properties in favour of their mother B.Kalaiselvi.
22.If the plaintiff had also executed the Release Deed, then she must be considered to have a pre-existing right and share over the A and 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 B schedule properties. That, she is a daughter of the mother cannot be denied or disputed. That, in view of the fact that after the death of the father, she along with the 1st defendant and the mother became entitled to an equal share in the properties which were left behind again cannot be denied or disputed. It is for that reason that the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant joined together to execute the two Release Deeds relinquishing their undivided 2/3 share in favour of the mother. That very aspect shows that on the date of executing the said release deeds namely, 22.03.2015 with respect to the B schedule property and on 06.09.2018 with respect to the A schedule property, the plaintiff had a subsisting title to the extent of undivided 1/3 share over such property. It is only for that purpose that a registered document had been executed relinquishing her title over the extent of her share over the said properties and the 1 st defendant had joined with the plaintiff in executing the Release Deeds.
23.The Release Deeds were not executed independently by the plaintiff and by the 1st defendant. They were executed jointly by them with respect to the A and B schedule properties. The only inference is that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant recognized that each one of 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 them had an existing undivided 1/3 share in the two properties namely, A and B schedule properties. This would also indicate that the 1 st defendant had also recognized that inspite of the settlement deeds executed and marked as Exs.D1 and D2 with respect to the property in Aminjikarai and the 3.83 acres of land, the plaintiff still had an existing title to the extent of an undivided share over the A and B schedule properties.
Recognition of such right, title of the plaintiff is reflected in the joint execution of the two Release Deeds marked as Exs.P4 and P5 with respect to the A and B schedule properties. No oral evidence can be given overriding the said written documents. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is very clear on that particular aspect.
24.According to the 1st defendant, the father had held out that the 1st defendant also should be entitled to the A and B schedule properties and that the plaintiff was therefore given the property at Aminjikarai and also vacant land of 3.83 acres at Panapakkam Village. However, it is stated that the land actually measured a larger area and out of the larger area, the plaintiff was allotted 3.83 acres and the 1 st defendants was allotted 3.46 acres.
17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020
25.Thus with respect to the lands there has not been an exact equal division, but still division between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. When the father executed settlement of that particular land in favour of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, he had also settled a property in favour of the plaintiff at Aminjikarai. The father could have executed similar documents with respect to the A and B schedule properties. I do agree that within the family there is always an element of trust. I do also admit under such trust, the 1st defendant would have reasonably expected that the plaintiff will not claim any share or title in the A and B schedule properties since she had been settled with substantial valuable property at Aminjukarai and lands of 3.83 acres. But still, once there is no written document bequeathing title or indicating title of A and B schedule properties, it has to be taken that every legal heir has an undivided share in the estate of their parent. On the death of the father, as Class I legal heirs namely, the mother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, each stood entitled to an undivided 1/3 share in the properties left behind.
18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020
26.The properties left behind were the A and B schedule properties. Both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had executed Release Deeds relinquishing their undivided 1/3 share each to the mother. The mother thus became the absolute owner of the A and B schedule properties. Therefore, on the death of the mother, the properties which she held would flow over to her Class I legal heirs namely, the 1 st defendant and the plaintiff. This would also mean that the 1st defendant and the plaintiff would also each be entitled to undivided 1/2 share in A and B schedule properties.
27.The further issue under consideration is whether the 1st defendant is liable to pay an equal proportion of the rent received from the tenants. A legal notice had been issued by the plaintiff to the 1 st defendant and also to the tenants. In the legal notice, the plaintiff had claimed that the total rents received is a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and therefore, she claimed a sum of Rs.90,000/- to be paid to her every month. But it is the case of the 1st defendant that the rental amount 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 actually received is a sum of Rs.80,000/-. There is no complete evidence on this aspect. The admission of the 1st defendant will therefore have to be taken.
28.It is trite in law to point out that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove a fact pleaded. The plaintiff has propounded that the total rental amount was received was Rs.1,80,000/-. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is very clear, that the party who states a fact, should prove that fact. The plaintiff had come to Court stating that the 1st defendant was receiving a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- every month as rent, then the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the tenants were paying a total rent of Rs.1,80,000/-, every month.
29.The plaintiff had impleaded as defendants practically all the tenants. To determine the actual rental amount paid by them, the plaintiff could have filed applications to summon those tenants as witnesses and seek direct evidence about the amount of rents paid and the advance paid by them. The plaintiff has miserably failed on that account. The plaintiff has not taken that particular step. Impleading the tenants as defendants, 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff. Rather the plaintiff should have invited the tenants as witnesses. By impleading them as defendants, the plaintiff cannot get a decree, that the total rent received by the 1 st defendant was Rs.1,80,000/- per month. Therefore, the Court will only have to go with the evidence of the 1st defendant, who stated that the total rent is Rs.80,000/- per month.
30. This aspect of receipt of rent will have to be examined with issue No.5 which relates to putting up of superstructure in B schedule property. If the 1st defendant had spent monies for putting up construction of B schedule property, then naturally, he could reasonably expect that the amount spent towards such construction should be offset with the rental income and even if the properties is to be divided into two equal halves between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the plaintiff should be called upon to pay the one half value of the construction, since the value of B schedule property had multiplied owing only to the construction put up.
31.The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that it was the 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 parents who had put up the construction. However, the evidence points out differently. On the side of the 1st defendant, an additional proof affidavit had been filed and documents had been adduced. During the course of such evidence, DW-1 had also marked as Ex.D7, the list of purchase order for construction material for B schedule property and receipts dated 02.07.2015. Ex.D8 was also marked claiming expenses incurred towards purchase of marbles and it is dated 18.06.2015. One aspect to be considered with respect to Exs.D7 and D8 is the proximity of the dates between the two documents. If documents had been produced for purchase of construction materials and after a few years another document is produced for purchase of construction materials, then the two documents can be doubted. But here both Exs.D7 and D8 are in the months of June and July 2015 and naturally they relate to purchases for a common purpose, and to utilize those items towards construction of B schedule property. That the B schedule property required construction, is further evidenced by Ex.D9 which indicated the state of the plan approval as on 2002.
32.It is admitted by both the learned counsels, that as on date 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 the constructed area in the B schedule consists of three floors. Putting up of three floors of construction would necessarily require quite some expenditure. Ex.D10 is the original Property Tax Assessment of the B schedule property. It is dated 20.10.2021.
33.I would therefore leave the calculation of mesne profits to be decided during the final decree application. Both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant can agitate, and if they required, lead further evidence with respect to the total costs of construction put up and seek adjustment of that particular cost with the actual rent. The evidence relating to the rental amounts received is totally unsatisfactory as on date. The plaintiff had not taken any step to examine any of the tenants who had been impleaded as defendants.
34.The 1st defendant on the other hand had produced Exs.D11 to D15, the original rental agreements with some of the tenants and the advance amount received from the tenants. Those can be taken into account, but further examination of the same can be done only during the course of final decree proceedings. At this present stage, a preliminary decree alone can be passed with respect to the entitlement of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in relation to the A and B schedule properties. 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020
35.During the course of arguments, both the learned counsels had also put up their proposals since it was a quarrel between a sister and her brother. The plaintiff had put up a proposal and stated that the plaintiff had been allotted with a flat at Aminjikarai by a Settlement Deed and also land of 3.83 acres at Panapakkam Village. It is also stated that the 1st defendant was also alloted 3.71 acres of land. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant was allotted land of 3.46 acres. The plaintiff had given a proposal that the plaintiff may be allotted A schedule property which measures 1601 sq.ft and the 1st defendant may be allotted B schedule property which measures 2400 sq.ft.
36.The 1st defendant also gave a proposal, wherein the 1 st defendant stated that the 1st defendant should be allotted both the A and B schedule properties and stated that towards the value of the A schedule property the 1st defendant shall pay the market value of Rs.1.80 Crores to the plaintiff.
24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020
37.These proposal can be determined during the final decree proceedings and after a report is obtained from the Commissioner relating to the actual value of the A and B schedule properties.
38.I fervently hope that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant would take a sensible and prudent decision. If both the A and B schedule properties are to be divided into two halves, neither will they be put to the advantage of the plaintiff nor will they be put to the advantage of the 1st defendant. A stranger third party alone will gain by such division of the property. They may therefore, take a considered decision.
39.To answer the issues framed, I hold that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to an equal share in the A and B schedule properties and with respect to the rental income, the evidence points that the monthly rents received is Rs.80,000/-. Further evidence in that regard can be let in if required, during the final decree application. With respect to the superstructure there is evidence that the 1 st defendant had put up 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 the superstructure in the B schedule property, but to offset the actual amount spent with the rental income received, further evidence can be adduced during the final decree proceedings.
40.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with respect to the first prayer namely, division of the properties and a preliminary decree is passed that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to an equal undivided 1/2 share in item No.1, of A schedule, namely, New Door No.43, Kalavi Chetty Street, Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002 and in item No.2 of A schedule namely, New Door No.45, Kalavai Chetty Street, Chintadripet, Chennai and also an undivided 1/2 share in B schedule property which is New Door No.57, / 117, Arunachalam Street, Chintadripet, Chennai. A preliminary decree to that extent is passed, I would relegate the issue of mesne profits to be decided during the final decree application. In view of the relationship between the parties, I would refrain from awarding costs.
25.11.2022 smv 26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No List of witness on the side of Plaintiff:
PW-1 A.Gajaharini
List of witnesses on the side of Defendant:
DW-1 G.Sasikala
DW-2 Devarajan
DW-3 Ambika
DW-4 Ganesh
List of exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff:-
Ex.P1 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 29.11.1982 executed by CL.K.Lakshmanan and others in favour of M.Balasubramaniam.
Ex.P2 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 13.07.1983 executed by by CL.K.Lakshmanan and others in favour of M.Balsubramaniam.
Ex.P3 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 29.03.1990 executed by Sankaran and 13 others in favour of M.Balasubramaniam. Ex.P4 Certified copy of the Release Deed dated 23.02.2015 executed by B.Ganapathy and A.Gajaharini in favour of B.Kalaiselvi.
Ex.P5 Certified copy of the Release Deed executed by B.Ganapathy and A.Gajaharini in favour of B.Kalaselvi.
Ex.P6 The original Legal Heirship Certificate of M.Balasubramaniam dated 05.09.2014.
27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 Ex.P7 The copy of the Death Certificate of B.Kalaiselvi dated 20.06.2020.
Ex.P8 The copy of the legal notice issued to the defendants 2 to 17 dated 11.07.2020 with acknowledgment.
Ex.P9 The copy of the Legal Heirship Certificate of B.Kalaiselvi dated 11.08.2020.
List of exhibits marked on the side of the defendant:-
Ex.D1 Certified copy of Settlement Deed in favour of plaintiff, Doc.No.1731/2013 dated 13.05.2013.
Ex.D2 Certified copy of Settlement Deed in favour of plaintiff, Doc.No.833/2017 dated 21.04.2017.
Ex.D3 Original legal notice dated 03.08.2020.
Ex.D4 Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
Doc.No.1731/2013 dated 21.09.2021.
Ex.D5 Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
Doc.No.833/2017 dated 04.10.2021.
Ex.D6 Cancelled.
Ex.D7 Sale order dated 02.07.2015 for erection of lift in B
schedule property and cash receipts.
Ex.D8 Tax invoice dated 18.06.2015 for purchase of marbles with
respect to B schedule property.
Ex.D9 Original approved building plan of B schedule property.
Ex.D10 Original property tax assessment of B schedule property dated 20.10.2021.
Ex.D11 Original Rental Agreement of the 4th defendant dated 02.05.2019.
Ex.D12 Original Rental Agreement dated 17.04.2019. Ex.D13 Original Receipt in respect of return of advance amount to Rithvik dated 10.05.2021.
28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 Ex.D14 Original Rental Agreement of 11th defendant dated 24.11.2019.
Ex.D15 Original Receipt in respect of return of advance amount to the 17th defendant dated 24.12.2020.
25.11.2022 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv 29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.202 of 2020 C.S.No.202 of 2020 25.11.2022 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis