Suit has been laid for partition and separate possession. The appellants, who are Defendants 2 to 4, have filed the above second appeal.
2.At the time of admission on 02.02.2016, the following substantial question of law has been framed. Having decreed the suit for partition, are the Courts below justified in not declaring/decreeing the shares of the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 while declaring/decreeing the shares of the plaintiffs?
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is the joint family property. The Courts below, treating the suit property as joint family property, have passed the preliminary decree for partition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in a suit for partition, every defendant is deemed to be a plaintiff and hence, they ought to have granted a decree for partition insofar as their shares.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs submits that they do not have any objection for it.
6. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to grant a preliminary decree after due notice to the parties in favour of the appellants and quantify their respective shares in the suit property, which has been found to be a joint family. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
7. Thus, the findings rendered by the Courts below are confirmed and the second appeal stands ordered accordingly. All other aspects , the order of the Courts below stand confirmed. No costs.
07.02.2017 raa To
1.IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
2.III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
M.M.SUNDRESH, J raa S.A.No.793 of 2015 07.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in