The court held that exclusive title to partitioned ancestral property belonged to the fourth defendant, rejecting the plaintiff's claim based on precedent case admissions regarding prior settlements.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

The preliminary decree in a suit for partition is under challenge by the fourth defendant.

2. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 1 acre 80 cents. The property originally belonged to one N.K.Chattanatha Karayalar. He had five sons and two daughters. He died in the year 1917. He had executed a Will in favour of one of his sons Subramonia Karayalar. Subramonia Karayalar had three sons and three daughters viz. Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.), Vaikunta Raman, Retnavelu, Avadi Ammal, Ponnammal and Chellammal. A truncated genealogy with the bare minimum members as is necessary for an easy understanding of the facts of the case is given hereunder.

3. The parties were governed by Mitakshara law. Subramonia Karayalar died in the year 1928. As per Ext.B29 agreement of the year 1950 entered into between his sons Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.), Vaikuntaraman and Retnavelu, the joint family status was disrupted resulting in each of the sons holding 1/3 shares over the ancestral properties.

4. Vaikuntaraman died in the year 1967. The plaintiff is his daughter. She seeks for partition and separate possession of her 1/9 shares over the plaint scheduled property. The plaintiff's brothers are defendants 1 and 2. Retnavelu died in the year 1994. His wife is the third defendant. Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.) died in the year 1972. His successors had conveyed the entire plaint scheduled property to the 4^th defendant, asserting exclusive right in themselves.

5. Defendants 1 to 3 supported the case of the plaintiff.

6. The 4^th defendant, who is the successor-in-interest of Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.) contested the suit. The 4^th defendant claimed exclusive title and possession over the property under Exts.A1 and A2 Sale Deeds (Exts.B22 and 23) dated 19.04.2000, executed by the legal heirs of Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.). The 4^th defendant asserted the exclusive title of Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.) over the property. It was claimed that such right was upheld in the prior litigations in the family viz. OS 33/1961 and OS 97/1981 . Accordingly they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The trial court found that the joint family was disrupted under Ext.B29 agreement. It was found that Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.), who was the eldest son of Subramonia Karayalar, was managing and administering the assets of the Family and that there is no material to find his exclusive ownership over the property. Accordingly, a preliminary decree was passed declaring the 1/9 shares of the plaintiff over the plaint scheduled property.

8. Pending the appeal, the appellant-4th defendant, purchased the rights of the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 are pursuing their claim for partition and separate possession of their shares.

9. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

10. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: -

(i) Does the evidence on record establish the exclusive title and possession of Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.) over the plaint scheduled property?

(ii) The appellant-4th defendant having purchased the share of the plaintiff, pending the appeal, is the appeal maintainable? Does the conduct amount to estoppel?

(ii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference?

11. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property belonged to Subramonia Karayalar under a Will executed by his father late N.K.Chattanatha Karayalar. The parties were governed by the pristine Hindu Mitakshara Law. Of the three sons of Subramonia Karayalar, Chattanatha Karayalar(Jnr.) was t