Judgment :-

Deepak Verma, J.

1.1. Leave granted.

2.2. Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A No.1168 of 2007, decided on 1.11.2007, arising from the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.39 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu on 20.11.2006, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree passed by Additional Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.666 of 2001 decided on 27.7.2004 has been confirmed, is before us, challenging the same on variety of grounds.

3. Certain facts not in dispute are as under :

The appellant is real sister of respondents, being son and daughters of late Sh. A.V. Venkataraman, who died in the year 1961 intestate. His wife Rathna, mother of the parties also died on 15.3.1996 intestate.

3.4. It has also not been disputed before us that family partition had taken place between the father of the present parties and his respective brothers on 27.4.1954, which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar. In the said partition, apart from the suit property, father and mother of parties were allotted plots No.2 and 3 shown in greater details in the deed of partition.

4.5. Since there arose dispute between the parties with regard to ancestral property left behind by late A.V. Venkataraman, the appellant was constrained to send a legal notice to the respondents on 8.6.1998 claiming partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/5th share. Respondent No.1 suitably replied to the same. Since the dispute could

not be resolved, even after exchange of notices, respondent No.1 as plaintiff, filed a suit in the court of Addl. Sub-Judge at Chengalpattu registered as O.S.No.666 of 2001 claiming the following decree :

"a) passing a preliminary decree for partition of plaintiffs 6/20 share in the suit property, to appoint an advocate commissioner to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds to pass a final decree and while passing preliminary decree and final decree and deliver separate possession of the suit property.

b) For such other relief or reliefs as this Honble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."

1.6. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein, arrayed as defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit filed their respective written statement as one set denying the contentions raised by the plaintiff.

2.7. The present appellant who was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the suit, filed the written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff respondent No.1 herein and further submitted as under :

3.8. That some of the neighbours like Mr. Ranganathan and Mr. Murugan, Dhanammal have encroached upon the land and, therefore, the plaintiff should also seek their eviction. She further submitted that suit is bad for partial partition as plaintiff has not included other properties of her father and mother, that is -1) plot No.3 of 185 Adyarthankal in fathers name 2) plot No.2 of 195 Adyarthankal in the mothers name and 3) Death cum service benefits of father.

4.9. Apart from this, the appellant herein further averred that she has spent considerable amount of money, material and labour for the protection, upkeep and improvements of the suit property and, therefore, she is entitled to be reimbursed to that extent.

5.10. On the strength of the pleadings of the aforesaid parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues :

"1) Is the plaintiff eligible for a share of 6/20?

2) A share of 6/20 to Defendant 2, and 1/20 share to 1st and 3rd defendant are eligible?

3) Is the 4th Defendant as claimed in the counter eligible for 36/90 share?

4) Is the partition affected by the encroachments referred by the 4th Defendant and also other items of the properties?

5) Cost award to the Plaintiff?

6) In this suit the Plaintiff filed P1 to P5 documents. 4th Defendant filed D1 to D 17 documents.

7) Issues addressed : 1 to 4."

1.11. To prove the case, plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents Ex.P-1 to P-5 while