- (1.) This appeal is focussed at the instance of the original defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009 passed in O.S.3902 of 2007 on the file of Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai 1
(2.) The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
(3.) Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: "(i) For partition of the schedule mentioned property by metes and bounds into four shares and allot three shares to the plaintiffs; (ii) for mesne profits from the rental income of the schedule mentioned property from the year 1980 till date of partition by this Hon'ble Court; and (iii) For costs." as against the original defendant/Madhava Rao, their brother, on the main ground that the suit property originally belonged to the parties' father, namely Govinda Rao, vide the sale deed dated 27.04.1947. The said Govinda Rao died during the year 1980, leaving behind his wife and his four children namely, one son- the defendant and three daughters - the plaintiffs 1 to 3. All the daughters got married during the life time of their father, namely Govinda Rao. Their mother died during the year 1984. As such, they prayed for partition and allotment of 1/4th share in favour of each of the plaintiffs and the defendant. (b) The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds including the one that the plaintiffs during the year 1989, executed a notary attested affidavit, Ex.B34 relinquishing and releasing their right over the suit property and that too for the consideration received by them, so to say, the first plaintiff received a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the second and third plaintiffs received Rs.10,000/- each, from the defendant; that the defendant had been enjoying the suit property as the absolute owner by getting effected mutation in the property tax register and also paying the tax and mortgaging the property also as many as five times as per Exs.B6 to B10 after the emergence of Ex.B34. Even before such release, the defendant mortgaged the suit property. Those mortgages were all effected purely for the purpose of meeting the family expenses, so to say, for providing facilities to the plaintiffs and in that connection only expenditures were incurred by raising the mortgage debts and those mortgage debts were discharged only by the defendant. Over and above that, debts had been incurred for arranging the marriages of the plaintiffs and in that connection also those debts were incurred and subsequently discharged by the defendant from out of his income which he earned by doing business in polishing jewellery. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the suit.;