Rajeevi Rengaraj vs Gowtham Rengaraj
2023 Latest Caselaw 6555 Mad

                                                                                             CS.No.981 of 2003


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 20.06.2023

                                                              CORAM:

                                         THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                         CS.No.981 of 2015

                     Rajeevi Rengaraj                              ...                  Plaintiff

                                                                Versus
                     1.Gowtham Rengaraj
                     2.Vijay Basker Rengaraj
                     3.Lavanya janakinadh                          ...                  Defendants

                     PRAYER: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court
                     O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC , praying to pass a decree and
                     judgement, against the defendants ;
                                  (a)for preliminary decree, directing the partition of the plaint 'A' and
                     'B' schedule properties into 8 equal shares an allot 5 shares to the plaintiff;
                                  (b)On the defendants failing to do so, by passing a final decree by
                     appointing a court commissioner to effect partition of the plaint 'A' and 'B'
                     schedule properties as per preliminary decree into eight equal shares and
                     allot 5 shares to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the same
                     and
                                  (c) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit and
                                  (d) granting such further or other relief to the plaintiff as this Court
                     may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

                     1/5



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                          CS.No.981 of 2003




                                        For Plaintiff      : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
                                        For Defendants     : M/S.R,Raghavan for D1
                                                           : M/S.T.K.Rajasekaran for D2

                                                           JUDGMENT

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for seeking partition of 5/8th

share in the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties of the suit.

2. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel for the

plaintiff submitted that the 'A' schedule property is a house property situated

in a site measuring an extent of 5850 sq.ft and it consists of three floors

[ground floor, 1st floor & 2nd floor]. The 'B' Schedule property is also a

house property situated in a site measuring an extent of 3916 sq.ft and it

comprises of 3 floors. However, the 1st floor has been excluded as it was

sold in favour of a third party. The plaintiff has further stated that the

ground floor in the 'B' schedule property also sold in favour of the first

defendant.

3.The learned counsel for the 1st defendant filed a memo stating that

he has no objection to pass a preliminary decree for partition in respect of

the 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule property excluding the ground

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS.No.981 of 2003

and first floor, therein.

4. The first and second defendants are the sons of the plaintiff. The

plaintiff has filed a memo stating that she has no objection for partitioning

the 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule property excluding the ground

and first floor, into four equal shares and allot ¼ share in the East to the

plaintiff and the defendants. The 3rd defendant is the daughter of the

plaintiff.

5. There is no dispute as to the title of the suit property and the

relationship between the parties. The 2nd defendant has also accepted to

divide the 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule property excluding the first

and ground floor therein. Since both the parties have arrived at an

understanding to divide the whole of 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule

property excluding the ground and first floor into the four shares and to allot

¼ th share each for the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3.

6. The memos filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are recorded.

Even though the plaintiff had originally filed a memo by stating that the

ground floor in 'B' schedule alone is excluded the learned counsel for the 1 st

defendant had carried out correction in the memo by stating that in the 'B'

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS.No.981 of 2003

schedule both the ground and first floor can be excluded for partition.

7. Hence, the suit has to be decreed in terms of the above memos

filed by both side parties and the plaintiff is entitled to get the preliminary

decree in respect of his ¼ th share in suit 'A' schedule property and 1/4th

share in suit 'B' schedule property excluding the ground and first floor

therein.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed as per the memorandum of

Understandings field by both the parties and the suit is decreed and the

preliminary decree is passed in respect of ¼ th share in suit 'A' schedule and

1/4th share in suit 'B' schedule property excluding the ground floor and the

first floor. Memos filed by both parties shall form part of the record. No

cost.

20.06.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral :Yes/No jrs

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS.No.981 of 2003

R.N.MANJULA, J.

jrs

CS.No.551 of 2003

20.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis