R.Mahalakshmi vs A.V.Anantharaman & Ors

3. Certain facts not in dispute are as under :

4. It has also not been disputed before us that family partition had taken place between the father of the present parties and his respective brothers on 27.4.1954, which was duly registered before the Sub- Registrar. In the said partition, apart from the suit property, father and mother of parties were allotted plots No.2 and 3 shown in greater details in the deed of partition.

6. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein, arrayed as defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit filed their respective written statement as one set denying the contentions raised by the plaintiff.

7. The present appellant who was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the suit, filed the written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff respondent No.1 herein and further submitted as under :

15. First Appellate Court was of the view that since appellant herein had failed to mention anything in her legal notice with regard to other properties said to have been owned and possessed by her late father A.V. Venkataraman and mother, she is not entitled to put forth a new case contrary to the documents available on record. Accordingly, the first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that suit would not be bad for partial partition.

16. As regards point No.2, it came to the conclusion that since relationship between the parties has not been disputed and that defendant No.2 remains unmarried and 4th defendant (appellant) got married subsequent to the year 1989 as such they will be entitled to receive their C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.4677 of 2008

In the result, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the M.P. is closed. No costs."

Thus, the suit filed by respondent No.1 claiming partial partition was bad and deserved to be dismissed.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.4677 of 2008

31. Critical examination of the registered deed of partition would show that all the immovable properties inherited by late A.V. Venkataraman were not included in the suit filed by respondent no.1. The courts below committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that appellant has not disclosed, with documentary proof with regard to other properties inherited by her late father. C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.4677 of 2008

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.4677 of 2008

35. In the light of the foregoing observations, judgment and decree passed by the courts below are hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remitted to the Trial court for giving opportunity to parties to amend their respective pleadings, to file additional documents and to lead further evidence in support of the amended pleadings. The Trial Court thereafter would pass a judgment after appreciating the additional pleadings and the evidence adduced thereon.

36. Since the matter is old, parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 1st September 2009 and would participate in the proceedings without asking for undue adjournments. The Trial Court would also endeavour to deliver the judgment within six months from the date of completion of pleadings of the parties.

37. We also record our appreciation for Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Advocate, who appeared as amicus for rendering C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.4677 of 2008

his valuable time in bringing correct legal position and facts to our notice.

38. The appeal thus stands allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove, looking to the facts of the case, the parties to bear their respective costs.

August 03, 2009.