Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The decree further directed that the plaintiff and defendants 7 to 9 are entitled to the profits at the rate of Rs.126-50 ps., per month each from 26-12-1977 till the date of delivery with interest at 12% per annum. Having been aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants filed the present appeal.

6. Sri E. Manohar, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, except appellant No.3, contends that the allotment of Unit No.l to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.7 to 9 is erroneous inasmuch as the shares of defendants 7 to 9 cannot be allotted jointly with the plaintiff as the final decree petition was filed by the plaintiff alone. The learned Counsel further contends that the request of defendant Nos.7 to 9 and the plaintiff by filing a memo to divide the property into four units should have been rejected. The learned Counsel further contends that one of the shares of the deceased sixth defendant i.e., the mother would devolve upon the sons and the Court did not take that into consideration erroneously. Sri Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel appearing for the third appellant contends that the Court in a partition should work out the equities and make an endeavour to allot that share to the party, which is in possession ordinarily in preference to others. Mr. Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents contends that the order passed by the Court below is equitable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel further contends that Unit No.1 of the house property was sold by the respondents in favour of the third parties and any disturbance of the allotment of shares at this stage would result in travesty of justice.