JUDGMENT: The plaintiff is the 1st appellant (now deceased). The suit is one for partition. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and Kuppachi Reddiar (k), the father of the 1st defendant (now deceased) were brothers and constituted a joint family. There existed an ancestral nucleus and from the income generated by joint exertion in the properties taken on lease in the name of K, the suit properties were purchased. The suit properties are liable to be partitioned. The respondents/ defendants filed an earlier suit where they admitted the existence of joint family property. Subsequently, before Panchayatdars, the parties divided the properties. K died on 15.2.1970 and it was only the plaintiff’s son and another who took him to the hospital and brought him back after the death. Though the acquisitions were made by joint effort, the properties were in the name of the eldest member of the family namely K. The suit filed by the respondents claiming exclusive possession was dismissed.

2. In view of the hostile attitude taken by the respondents, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition against defendants 1 to 5 who are the respondents 1 to 5. The 1st respondent is the son of Kuppachi Reddiar, who is now dead. The 2nd respondent is Kuppachia’s wife and respondents 3, 4 and 5 are the daughters of Kuppachi Reddiar. Respondents 6 to 8 are the legal representatives of the 1st respondent. The 1st defendant alone filed written statement denying the claim made in the plaint. According to the written statement, the 1st appellant was not a co-owner. There was no ancestral nucleus. There was no joint ownership nor joint possession. There was no joint family. The brothers got divided about 23 years ago. There was no joint exertion and no occasion for joint purchase or joint labour and for joint earning. There was no decision of Panchayatdars and no concluded mediation. The dismissal of the earlier suit is not final. The alleged Panchayat division is false and not tenable. The suit has to be dismissed.

3. The 1st defendant remained ex parte. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the properties were the self-acquired properties of Kuppachi Reddiar and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any share.

4. The questions that arise in this first appeal are whether there was a joint family, whether the properties were purchased out of the funds generated by the joint family nucleus or by the income from joint exertion, whether the alleged panchayat division is true and whether the appellants are entitled to a decree for partition.

5. Mr.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there was a clear admission by the 1st respondent that there was joint family property in the earlier suit in O.S. No.123 of 1970. He had clearly pleaded that the ancestral joint family properties were divided between the two brothers and each was enjoying a separate share. Therefore, it is not open to the defendants to contend now that there is no joint family nucleus. He referred to several decisions to show that when the admissions are unambiguous and clear, they will bind the parties, especially admissions in pleadings. It was also submitted that as many as 7 witnesses had been examined as plaintiff’s witnesses and they had all spoken of the existence of joint family nucleus and therefore, there was no justification for the trial Court to reject the suit for partition. It was also pointed out that issue No.4 which is “whether the father of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff got divided 23 years ago as alleged in the written statement” was not answered by the trial Court at all and this was crucial. When the defendants had pleaded that there was a division of the ancestral properties in the written statement, then the Court below ought to have given a finding regarding the same and the failure to consider and decide this issue vitiates the judgment. It was also submitted that the trial Court erred in holding that there was no proof

Click Here to Read the rest of this document