The first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.240 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy, is the appellant in this appeal.
2.The respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No.240 of 2004 for partition of their 1/3rd share to each of them and for separate possession and for other reliefs.
3.The case of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 is that the plaintiffs and the first defendant are the daughters of K.Kuppusamy Naidu and one Yasodai Ammal. It was stated that the suit property belonged to K.Kuppusamy Naidu who purchased the same in the name of his wife Yasodai Ammal under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1977. It was further contended by the plaintiffs that their mother permitted the first defendant and her husband to reside in a portion of the suit property and that they are now residing in the suit property without paying rent to any one. Yasodai Ammal died on 17.02.1999. It was contended by the plaintiff that the first defendant and her husband took advantage of the old age of Yasodai Ammal started collecting rent from all the tenants even during her life time and appropriated to their purpose. The plaintiffs are therefore claimed their 1/3rd share each in the property as well as the income from the said property.
4.The suit was contested by the first defendant by filing a detailed written statement. Though the fact that the suit property belonged to Yasodai Ammal is not in dispute, the first defendant contended that the said Yasodai Ammal borrowed several amounts from various persons for the purpose of improving the suit properties and that therefore, the plaintiffs are liable to contribute for the improvements which was made to the suit property after spending amount.
5.The trial Court, specifically framed an issue whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay the first defendant for the improvements made in the suit property. However, after considering the arguments of the respective counsels and the evidence in full, the trial Court categorically given a finding that the first defendant is not entitled to claim any amount from the plaintiffs as she has spent without the prior permission or without the prior consent of the plaintiffs. Since, there was no consent or permission for the improvements, the trial Court has categorically found that the first defendant is not entitled to any amount from the plaintiffs even assuming that there are some improvements with the money spent by the first defendant. The trial Court also framed specific issues whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim a sum of Rs.16,000/- by way of damages for the use and occupation of the building from defendants 2 and 3. Since the first defendant is liable to render account, the trial Court found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any amount by way of damages for use and occupation from defendants 2 and 3. Subject to the observation of the trial Court that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek rendition of account, no decree is granted in favour of the plaintiffs towards damages. Similarly, as pointed out earlier, it was also held that the plaintiffs are not liable for any claim by the first defendant towards money allegedly spent by the first defendant towards improvement. The appellant though made submissions to the effect that the improvements made by the first defendant cannot be denied and that she is entitled to get the same from the plaintiffs in equity, this Court find that such submission is not acceptable, having regard to the specific finding by the trial Court. The fact that the first defendant is in constructive possession of the property is not in dispute. The trial Court has categorically found that it is the first defendant who is liable to render account to the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiffs are not liable to make any payments to the first defendant towards improvement cannot be found fault with especially having regard to the fact that the improvements even if any were not done either with the permission or with the consent of plaintiffs. Hence, I do not find any merits in this appeal. Hence, the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.240 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy, is therefore confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The First Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..