The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution and acting upon of settlement deeds and will in property disputes, as well as the importance of presenting consistent and reliable evidence.

(Prayer: The Appeal and both cross objections have been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.1992, passed in O.S.No.81 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Villupuram.)

Common Judgment:

This appeal as well as both the cross-objections have arisen out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.81 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, dated 27.03.1992. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, who is the daughter of the first Defendant, for partition of 7/15 share except Item No.14, 22 & 29 and for partition of 1/5 share in Item No.14, 22 and 29 in plaint 'A' Schedule property and also for declaration in respect of the plaint 'B' Schedule property.

2. The short facts of the plaintiff's case relevant for deciding the appeal are as follows:

2(a) The plaint schedule property belongs to one Marimuthu Gounder in a partition. The first Defendant-Angammal and the second Defendant-Thangammal, who is now no more, are the wives of Marimuthu Gounder. Plaintiff is the daughter of Marimuthu Gounder through the first Defendant-Angammal and D-3 & D-6 are the daughters of Marimuthu Gounder through the second Defendant-Thangammal.

2(b) Plaintiff's father Marimuthu Gounder had executed a settlement deed dated 22.08.1978 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of undivided 1/3 share in the 'B' schedule property. It was a registered settlement deed. The said settlement deed was acted upon by the plaintiff. In pursuance of the settlement deed patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiff and he is paying land tax also. As per the oral agreement entered into between the plaintiff and his father, plaint Item No.19 to 29 in 'A' Schedule properties were allotted towards the 1/3 share of the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Item No.19 to 29 of the plaint 'B' Schedule property. Marimuthu Gounder died on 17.08.1987 leaving his two wives and three daughters, who are D-1 to D-3, D-6 and plaintiff respectively. Except 'B' Schedule property in 'A' Schedule property D-1 to D-3, D-6 and plaintiff are each entitled to 1/3 share. Plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in plaint 'A' Schedule property except Item No.14, 22 & 29 and in respect of the remaining properties the plaintiff is entitled to 2/3 share. The plaintiff has filed the suit for 1/5 share in the suit property except Item No.14, 22 & 29 in 'A' Schedule property. D-3 & D-6 have sent a notice on 03.11.1987 claiming right in 'B' Schedule property also denying the right of the plaintiff in 'A' Schedule property. D-3 and D-6 claimed that they are entitled to 'A' Schedule property under settlement deed dated 23.02.1976 executed by Marimuthu Gounder. But the said settlement deed was not acted upon. The said settlement deed was cancelled by Marimuthu Gounder on 04.01.1977. Plaintiff has never made any attempt to trespass into the properties of the Defendants. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of his 1/5th share.

2(c) The first Defendant in her written statement has contended that she (D-1) is the legally wedded wife of Marimuthu Gounder(deceased) and the D-2 is not the legally wedded wife of Marimuthu Gounder. The second Defendant is a concubine of Marimuthu Gounder. The second Defendant had already married one Narayanan of Aakkanure and lived with him for five years and afterwards she came and joined with Marimuthu Gounder. Marimuthu Gounder and the second Defendant never lived as husband and wife and D-3 & D-6 are not the daughters of them. Marimuthu Gounder, while he was alive, executed a settlement deed on 22.08.1978 in respect of undivided 1/3 share and registered the same. Plaintiff is in possession of Item No.19 to 29 in 'A' scheduled property at Vengoor Village for the past ten years. After the death of the first defendant's husband on 17.08.1987, the plaintiff and the first Defendant alone are entitled to the suit property, as the legal heirs of the said Marimuthu. The first Defendant is entitled to ½ shar