Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in OS.No.3093/2020, decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant, B.Rajendran, is the elder brother of the respondent/plaintiff, Subramani. The suit was filed for partition of the plaintiff's half share in the suit property measuring 1200 sq.ft. in Chennai, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from mutating revenue records or alienating the property. The property was originally owned by the parties' father, V.Balaraman, who purchased it in 1975 and executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife in 1983. The father died in 1990. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant sold another property in Naidupet, Andhra Pradesh, without his consent and appropriated the proceeds. After failed mediation, the plaintiff issued a legal notice in March 2020 and filed the suit. The defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the settlement deed extinguished the plaintiff's rights. The trial court decreed the suit, granting partition and injunction. On appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff, as a co-owner, has a right to seek partition and that the suit is not barred by limitation. The court also affirmed the injunction to protect the plaintiff's share.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Partition - Right to Seek Partition - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The plaintiff, son of the deceased father, sought partition of half share in the suit property which was originally owned by the father and later settled in favour of the mother. The court held that the settlement deed in favour of the mother did not extinguish the plaintiff's right to seek partition as the property was inherited from the father and the plaintiff is a co-owner along with the defendant. (Paras 4-10) B) Limitation - Partition Suit - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation as the settlement deed was executed in 1983. The court held that a suit for partition by a co-owner is not barred by limitation as long as the co-owner remains in possession and the right to partition is a continuing right. (Paras 11-13) C) Injunction - Permanent Injunction - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The court held that since the plaintiff is a co-owner, he is entitled to an injunction to protect his share from being alienated without his consent. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit property, and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023 in OS.No.3093/2020 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- co-ownership
- settlement deed
- right to seek partition
- limitation for partition
- permanent injunction
- mutation of revenue records
