AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Kalyanasundaram, J
The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking Judgment and Decree in respect of the following reliefs:-
a) By passing a preliminary decree thereby partition the schedule property described in the plaint into 4 equal share and allot 1/4th share in favour of the plaintiff and handover the separate possession thereof to the plaintiff;
b) for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to divide the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and to handover the possession of the plaintiff's share; and for costs of the suit.
According to the plaintiff, her mother-in-law Mrs.Sugantha Gopalakrishnan became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 21.08.1959, registered as Document No.2562 of 1959, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, T.Nagar, Chennai. The first defendant is the husband and the second defendant and the plaintiff's husband K.Hari are sons of the said Mrs.Sugantha Gopalakrishnan.
The plaintiffs would state that her mother-in-law died on 27.10.2013 intestate, leaving behind her husband-Hari and defendants herein as her legal-heirs. The plaintiff's husband died on 18.09.2015. Since the plaintiff and her husband had no issues / child, the plaintiff became the sole legal-heirs of Mr.Hari and hence, she has right to claim 1/4 share from the suit schedule property.
It is stated that the plaintiff married-Hari on 02.02.1994 and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the plaintiff has been residing at the suit property along with her husband. It is also stated that the plaintiff is the Dentist by Profession, hence, she modified a portion of the schedule property and set up a clinic in the name and style of "Smile Dental Clinic". However, after the demise of her mother-in-law and her husband, the defendants attempted to evict the plaintiff from the suit property and disconnected electricity supply enjoyed by her. Hence, she was constrained to prefer a police complaint on 08.08.2017 and the jurisdictional police issued C.S.R.No.84 of 2017. The plaintiff has further stated that the first defendant executed release deed dated 14.07.2017, transferring his 1/4 share in favour of the second defendant. Since the suit properties were not partitioned despite the request made by the plaintiff's notice dated 12.08.2017, the present suit has been filed.
Though the defendants were served suit summons as early as on 09.01.2018, however, they have not chosen to file their written statement and hence they were set ex-parte on 21.08.2019.
The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the following documents as Exs.P1 to P17 as documentary evidence:-
Exs
Documents
Dated
P1
Certified copy of the sale deed executed in the name of Mrs.Sugantha Gopala Krishnan
-
P2
Xerox copy of the marriage registration certificate between her and her husband
-
P3
Xerox copy of the electricity card stands in the name of Mrs.Sugantha Gopala Krishnan pertains to the Smile Clinic and its receipts
-
P4
Xerox copy of the water and sewerage board card in the name of Mrs.Sugantha Gopala Krishnan pertains to the Smile Clinic and its receipts
-
P5
Xerox copy of the Bank pass book shows the maintenance charges paid to the second defendant's wife
-
P6
Xerox copy of the death certificate pertains to Late Sugantha Gopala Krishnan
-
P7
Xerox copy of the legal-heir certificate pertains to late Sugantha Gopala Krishnan
-
P8
Xerox copy of the death certificate pertains to her husband late G.Hari
-
P9
Xerox copy of the legal-heir certificate pertains to her husband Late Mr.G.Hari
-
P10
Xerox copy of the doctor certificate pertains to the first defendant
07.07.2017
P11
Certified copy of the release executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant
14.07.2017
P12
Xerox Draft copy of the Memorandum of Understanding
-
P13
Xerox copy of the Police complaint with receipt CSR No.84 of 2017
08.08.2017
P14
Xerox copy of letter issued by her requested for partition
12.08.2017
P15
Xerox copy of the reply sent by the defendant's counsel
30.08.2017
P16
Xerox copy of the letter sent to the defendants thereby calling upon them to restore the amenities along with the photos
20.09.2017
P17
Computer generated copy of the death certificate of the first defendant issued by the Chennai Corporatio
-
7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has proved her case by producing the oral and documentary evidence and she is entitled for decree sought for in the suit.
The defendants were set ex-parte on 21.08.2019. The said position continued as of now. Taking into consideration, the pleadings, the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P16, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has proved her case. Accordingly, a preliminary decree of partition is passed as prayed for by the plaintiff in clause (a) of the prayer made in the suit. However, there shall be no order as to costs.