1.D. Lakshmi W/o. Mr. M.V. Devaprasad2.P. Mala W/o. Mr. Puniyakoti3.J. Shanthi W/o. Mr. S v. Nandakumar

C.S. No.415 of 2019property more fully described in the Schedule A to F hereunder by metes and bounds to allot separate possession of the 5/9th share of the same to the Plaintiffs, (ii)for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to divide the Suit properties mentioned in the Schedule A to F by metes and bounds.(iii)For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives or anybody claiming through them from alienating, encumbering, or dealing with any portion of the Schedule A to F mentioned properties;(iv)Directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as and towards the claim of rental income restricted by the Plaintiffs towards their 5/9th share as past mesne profits and claim of future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.66,666/- per month from the date of plaint to the date of realization; and(v)For the cost of the SuitPage No.2 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019For Plaintiffs:Mr. T.V. Vineeth KumarFor Defendants:D1, D2 & D4:Mr. V. ShanmugamD3Mr. Dilip KumarFor M/s. Shah & Shah.JUDGMENTThis Suit has been filed for the relief of partition and to divide the Suit properties into 9 shares and allot 5 such shares to the Plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives or anybody from alienating, encumbering or dealing with any portion of the Schedule A to F mentioned properties and for mesne profits.2. The gist of the Plaint averments are as follows:-The Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and daughters of late M. Subbachari and Mrs. S. Saraswathi, who is the 1st defendant herein. The said Subbachari died on 17.01.2018 intestate leaving behind him, the Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs to Page No.3 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019succeed his estate. The said Subbachari had purchased various movable and immovable properties in his name out of his own self acquired funds. He purchased a house property at Choolaimedu under a Sale Deed dated 14.12.1987 to a extent of 2800 sq. ft. i.e., ‘A’ Schedule property. He also purchased another property bearing Door No.39/02/259, Reddy Street, Nerkundram through a Sale Deed dated 17.02.1989 to an extent of 7800 sq. ft. i.e. ‘B’ Schedule property. He purchased ‘C’ schedule property at Plot No.14 & 15, II Main Road, Sivandhi Avenue, Nerkundram, Chennai through a Sale Deed dated 08.09.1993 to an extent of 5478 sq. ft.. The ‘D’ Schedule property at Door No.5B Patel Road, Mandaveli, Nerkundram, Chennai was also purchased by the father of the Plaintiffs under a Sale Deed dated 27.08.1998 to an extent of 1964 sq. ft. The father of the Plaintiffs also purchased one Ambassador car bearing Registration No.TMO 5059 i.e., ‘E’ Schedule property and he also established a machinery equipments under the name and style of ‘Sri Murugan Body Builders’, which was being run at the premises bearing Door No.39/02/259, Reddy Street, Nerkundram, Chennai i.e., ‘F’ Page No.4 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019Schedule property. 2.1. The father of the Plaintiffs, during his lifetime, had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the above said movable and immovable properties and he was receiving the rental income and he also maintained Savings Bank Accounts, fixed deposits and current account in various banks with balance of approximately Rs.10 to 15 lakhs, gold, diamond and silver jewellaries, cash on hand and ATM cards etc., After the demise of the father of the Plaintiffs, the defendants are receiving the rent, thereby they are liable to render accounts for the rent. However, the Plaintiffs have restricted their claim to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs towards past mesne profits and claims a sum of Rs.66,666/- towards future mesne profits from the date of Plaint till the date of realization. 2.2. The father of the Plaintiffs namely M. Subbachari and the 1st defendant were residing in one portion of the ‘A’ Schedule property and the 2nd defendant, a divorcee, was residing in a first floor residential portion, the 3rd defendant along with his family was residing in one residential portion in Page No.5 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019the first floor and the 4th defendant, being a bachelor, was residing in one residential portion in the second floor of the property as mentioned in the ‘A’ Schedule property. The Plaintiffs had been coming and staying along with their father and the 1st defendant and taking care of their parents till the death of their father Subbachari. The said Subbachari died on 17.01.2018. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs demanded their 5/9 share in the Suit properties, but the defendants refused for giving equal share to the Plaintiffs. The defendants are receiving the rental income and spending them lavishly without parting with the due share to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to 5/9 share in all the Suit properties. The defendants 1 to 4 are attempting to alienate the Suit properties. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for partition.3. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 have filed a written statement stating that the 4th defendant has been associated with the business along with his father for more than 25 years. The Plaintiffs are well aware of the 4th defendant’s Page No.6 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019role and part in developing the business and in acquiring the Suit schedule properties. The averments made in the Plaint that his father Subbachari had left fixed deposits and bank balances upto 10 lakhs and gold jewels upto Rs.15 lakhs and also was receiving Rs.1.2 lakhs as rent from the properties and all these have been utilized by these defendants and therefore, they are liable to render true and correct accounts are untenable and baseless. The said Subbachari, during his lifetime, had jointly performed the marriages of his sons and daughters and after the marriage of the Plaintiffs, their father restricted them from having any access or dealing in respect of movable or immovable properties and they have been ousted from the family. The 1st defendant had spent about 63 years of her life with him and on several occasions, she has heard from him that he has made a Will dealing with the suit properties and they could not find the document. Already the Plaintiffs issued a legal notice and the same was suitably replied by the defendants. The Subbachari had established the business and the 4th defendant had taken over the entire business and with the guidance and advice of his father, he Page No.7 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019improved it to a greater extent and the said Subbachari used to visit the business till 2006. Thereafter, he had various ailments and he was taking continuous treatment. The 3rd defendant, the elder son of Subbachari, after his marriage, had deserted the parents and was living separately. He had started a travel business with the help of funds provided by Subbachari and he settled with his family. The father of the Plaintiffs had good education to all his children and also performed their marriages by providing each of them sufficiently. The defendants are unable to trace out the Will. Therefore, the Suit is premature. 3.1. The Plaintiffs have made bald and vague allegations regarding the income derived from the Suit properties. There is no absolute base for the claim. The ‘A’ Schedule property has 10 small portions, out of which, four have been occupied by the defendants. Some of the remaining portions are vacant and few have been let out for meager rents. The 1st defendant, the mother of the Plaintiffs and other defendants are receiving the rent for her medical expenses and for the maintenance of properties. The other Page No.8 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019defendants are not enjoying the income from the property. The entire developments in the Suit properties have been made by the 4th defendant out of his own earnings. There should be preference for the defendants to choose their share and value in respect of the Suit properties. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.4. Based on the above said pleadings, upon hearing both sides and perusing the records, this Court had framed the following issues:-(i)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to 5/9 share from the properties described in the Schedule A to F hereunder.(ii)In the absence of any Will or instrument executed by late S. Subbachari, are not the parties entitled to a share as prayed for in the Suit.(iii)Are the Plaintiffs entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering with any A to F Schedule mentioned properties.(iv)Are the Plaintiffs not entitled to get the mesne profits at the rate of Page No.9 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019Rs.66,666/- per month or any such amount as decided by this Court.(v)Whether the 4th defendant is entitled to claim separately for the development made by him in the Suit schedule properties.(vi)Is not the ‘F’ Schedule property is the absolute property of the 4th defendant.(vii)To what other relief the parties are entitled to.5. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiffs, they have examined PW 1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the side of the defendants, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence, in spite of ample opportunities. Further, they cross examined the Plaintiffs’ side witness. Thereafter, they had not appeared.6. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs would submit that the Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and daughters of late M. Subbachari and the 1st defendant S. Saraswathi. The Suit schedule A to F Page No.10 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019mentioned properties are self-acquired properties of the father of the Plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 and he died on 17.01.2018 leaving behind the Plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. The defendants have not denied the relationship and the acquisition of the properties by the father of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of the deceased Subbachari, are entitled to share over the properties. The defendants have pleaded about the Will in the Written statement, but they have not even mentioned the date of the Will and the said Will has not been produced as one of the documents. Therefore, the Plaintiffs being the daughters of the deceased Subbachari are entitled to 5/9 share over the Schedule mentioned properties. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiffs, they have examined PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The defendants have cross examined PW1 and thereafter, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on their side. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have proved that the properties are self-acquired properties of their father and they are entitled to 5/9 share over the properties and they are also entitled to mesne profits and for costs. Page No.11 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 20197. After completion of the Plaintiffs’ side evidence, the defendants failed to examine any witness and to mark any document on their side. Thereafter, this Court posted the case for arguments. During the course of arguments also, the defendants’ counsel sought for adjournment and even after ample chances given to them, they have not argued. Therefore, this Court posted the case for judgment. Based on the documents, this Court passed this judgment.8. The Suit is filed for the reliefs of partition and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or dealing with any portion of the schedule A to F mentioned properties, for mesne profits and costs.9. Issue Nos.1,2,5 and 6: (i)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to 5/9 share from the properties described in the Schedule A to F hereunder.Page No.12 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019(ii)In the absence of any Will or instrument executed by late S. Subbachari, are not the parties entitled to a share as prayed for in the Suit.(iii)Whether the 4th defendant is entitled to claim separately for the development made by him in the Suit schedule properties.(iv)Is not the ‘F’ Schedule property is the absolute property of the 4th defendant.In this case, there is no dispute in respect of the relationship of the parties and nature of properties. According to the Plaintiffs, their father namely Subbachari purchased the properties A to D through Sale deeds out of his own earnings and also purchased ‘E’ schedule property of ‘one green colour Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TMO 5059’ and ‘F’ Schedule property viz ‘All machinery equipment housed at Sri Murugan Body Builders, Door No.39/2/259 Reddy Street, Nerkundram, Chennai. The defendants have also not disputed the purchase of the said properties by the father of the Page No.13 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 and the husband of the 1st defendant. According to the 4th defendant, he also contributed for the purchase of properties and for running the business and he only developed the business. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiffs, they examined PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The defendants also admitted about the purchase of the properties in the name of M. Subbachari. PW1 has also deposed that the Schedule A to D properties were purchased by the father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 through various Sale deeds and the 'E' Schedule property was also purchased by the father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 and the F schedule property was also run by the father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4. the Plaintiffs have examined Pw1 and she deposed about the purchase of properties by her father and her joint possession and enjoyment. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and ex.P.6 are the copies of Sale Deeds in the name of Subbachari. From the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, they clearly proved that the said Subbachari purchased the Suit properties and he died intestate leaving behind the Plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal Page No.14 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019heirs to succeed his estate.9.1. The defendants, in their written statement, pleaded that the father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4, during his lifetime, executed a Will, but there is no reference about the particulars of Will and they have, not even mentioned the date of the Will. Even according to the defendants, the said Will has not been traced out by them. Therefore, in the absence of any Will, the Plaintiffs being the legal heirs of the deceased Subbachari, are entitled to share over the properties. There is no dispute that all the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Subbachari and they are equally entitled to the share over the properties. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to 5/9 share over the properties and each defendant 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/9 share over the properties. 9.2. Though the 4th defendant has claimed that he made development in Page No.15 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019the schedule properties, there is no any evidence adduced by him to prove the same and the defendants have not even entered into the witness box to prove their contention. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to prove that the 4th defendant has developed the properties and after the demise of his father, he has only taken over the business by his own money and labour, the contention of the 4th defendant is not acceptable to that regard. Even according to the Written statement, business in the ‘F’ schedule business was started by the father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 and even assuming that the 4th defendant is managing the business, that alone is not sufficient to claim the property of the deceased Subbachari as absolute property of the 4th defendant. Therefore, the 4th defendant cannot claim the 'F' schedule property as his absolute property and all the legal heirs of the Subbachari are entitled to share over the ‘F’ schedule property. Thus the issues are answered.10. Issue No.3: Are the Plaintiffs entitled to permanent injunction Page No.16 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019restraining the defendants from encumbering with any A to F Schedule mentioned properties. The Plaintiffs sought for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives or anybody claiming through them from alienating, encumbering, or dealing with any portion of the Schedule A to F mentioned properties. According to the Plaintiffs, the defendants are attempting to alienate the properties. Therefore, they sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the properties. Since the Plaintiffs are entitled to share over the properties, if any alienation made, it will affect the rights of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering in respect of the 5/9 share over the Suit properties. Thus the issue is answered. 11. Issue No.4: Are the Plaintiffs not entitled to get the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.66,666/- per month or any such amount as decided by this Page No.17 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019Court.The Plaintiffs have sought for past mesne profits of Rs.5 lakhs and future mesne profits of Rs.66,666/- per month. The plaintiffs have not produced any document to prove the income derived through the suit properties and the defendants have also, in their written statement, pleaded that most of the portions of the properties were occupied by the defendants and some portions are vacant and some portions are rented out and the rent has been collected by the mother of the Plaintiffs, the 1st defendant herein and she is using the said amount for her livelihood. Though the Plaintiffs have pleaded in their pleadings about the mesne profits and also deposed in the evidence that rental income through ‘A’ Schedule property would come to Rs.1 lakh and the rental income through ‘B’ Schedule property would come around Rs.20,000/-, but no record has been produced by the Plaintiffs to prove the same. Therefore, in the absence of any records, this Court cannot come to a conclusion about the rental income. However, the defendants admitted the collection of rent by the 1st defendant, which is only a meagre amount. Thereby, in the absence of Page No.18 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019concrete evidence, it is not proper to award mesne profit. The Plaintiffs have also failed to furnish the particulars of tenants and the rent collected by the defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to get any mesne profit as claimed by them. Thus the issue is answered.12. Issue No.7: To what other relief the parties are entitled to.In view of the above discussions made under Issue Nos.1 to 6, the Plaintiffs are only entitled to partition of 5/9 share over the schedule properties and they are entitled to permanent injunction in respect of their shares by restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering with any portion of their respective shares. Apart from the above, they are not entitled to any other relief through this Suit. Thus, issue is answered.13. In the result, this Suit is partly decreed as follows:(i)The Plaintiffs are entitled to 5/9 share over the Suit properties and the Suit properties are ordered to be divided to 9 parts and to allot 5 Page No.19 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019parts to the Plaintiffs and the parties are entitled to final decree by way of separate application.(ii)The defendants are restrained by an order of permanent injunction from creating any encumbrance over the 5/9 share of the Plaintiffs over the Suit properties.(iii)In respect of mesne profits, this Suit is dismissed.14. Considering the nature of Suit and the relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs..26.09.2025Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/NomjsAPPENDIX:List of Plaintiff side Witnesses:PW1:Mrs. D. Lakshmi List of Plaintiff side Documents:Exhibit No.DateDescription of Documents.Ex.P.114.12.1987Certified copy of the Sale Deed vide Doc. No.498/1998.Page No.20 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019Ex.P.2 17.02.1989Certified copy of the Sale Deed vide Doc. No.526/1989.Ex.P.308.09.1993Certified copy of the Sale Deed vide Doc. No.3861/1993.Ex.P.417.09.2018Office copy of the Legal NoticeEx.P.5 series08.04.2019Office copy of the Legal Notice and acknowledgement cards (4 nos.)Ex.P.617.01.2018Certified copy of the Sale Deed in favour of late M. Subbachari dated 27.08.1998.Ex.P719.07.2018Death certificate of M. Subbachari.List Defendant Side Witnesses and Documents:NIL26.09.2025Page No.21 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 2019P.DHANABAL.,Jmjs C.S. No.415 of 2019Page No.22 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.415 of 201926.09.2025Page No.23 of 23