The Plaintiff, by amended Plaint dated 3 May 2018, states that she is the registered owner of Parcels C5773 and C5769 (hereinafter the Property) situated at Anse Royale, Mahé and that the Property were subdivisions of Parcel C5767, the latter being a subdivision of Parcel C1546.
The head suit
 The Petitioner in the matter seeks an order for the Respondent to pay the Petitioner one half of the value of the Parcel S3542 with the house thereon.
 The Petitioner avers that the Respondent was his concubine and the co-owner in title of the other half share of parcel number S3542.
 He further avers that the parties are now separated and he does not wish to remain as co-owner in indivision together with the Respondent.
FACTS & PLEADINGS
 The plaintiff seeks the specific performance of a deed of sale dated 15th November 2009, by which the defendant, in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the late Alfredine Chiffone nee Louis, purported to transfer land parcel Title No. B742, to the plaintiff, for a consideration of Rs.5000.00.
 The Petitioner is the executrix of the estate of the late Lambert Monthy (hereafter the First Deceased) with whom she had one child. The Respondents are the siblings and/or ayant cause of the First Deceased’s siblings.
 The Petitioner avers that she was living in a house on Parcel B260 at La Misère, Mahé belonging to the late Evangeline Monthy (the Second Deceased), her mother-in -law and the mother of the Respondents or their predecessors.
 This case concerns a bitter family dispute over property. The First Plaintiff is the Executor of the Estate of the late Leonne Payet (hereinafter the Deceased) who passed away on 17 June 2017 and is the brother of the Second Plaintiff and the Defendant.
 The Deceased had a usufructuary interest in Title Nos H2519 and H2520 and the Defendant has the bare ownership.
 The parties are brothers and co-owners in indivision of land comprised in Title C109 at Anse la Mouche, Mahé of the extent of 1143 square meters. The property is co-owned in the following proportions: the Petitioner two-thirds, and the Respondent one-third.
 In February 2017, the Petitioner applied for a division in kind of the property averring that the property could conveniently and profitably be sub divided in kind amongst the co-owners.