Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

TRIAL COURT

7. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in Suit Properties?

2) To what other reliefs?” 7.1. To prove the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff - Rajaraman examined himself as P.W.1, and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3, and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.30 were marked. On the side of the defendants, Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 respectively and two other witnesses were examined as D.W.5 and D.W.6, and Ex.B.1 to Ex-B.39 were marked.

3. That as per their arrangements, his sons Nagarathinam and Navarathinam have been contributing their physical labour in the cultivation of the said lands even while Natesan was alive and paying rent. That they continued even after the demise of Natesan.The said Nagarathinam and Navarathinam were cultivating the properties 1 to 4 and have been paying the rent to our client. Your client Rajaraman has not cultivated items 1 to 4 and not paid rent. Hence the said Nagarathinam and Navarathinam were the persons who succeeded to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21 of 26 tenancy rights as far as the items 1 to 4 (even assuming that there was no division previous to death of Natesan) and paying rent to our client.