1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.515 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif, Sangagiri, who lost in both the Courts below is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The first defendant Perianna Gounder (who died pending suit) has three sons - Late Natesa Muthu alias Perianna Gounder, Subramani and Kandasamy. The third defendant is the wife of Natesa Muthu, while the 4th defendant is their daughter. Plaintiff is the wife of Kandasamy. According to the plaintiff, there was a partition in the family in the year 1968 between the father and sons. In that, Perianna Gounder was allotted ‘A’ schedule, while his three sons were allotted ‘B’ schedule property. Subramani and Kandasamy in the year 1980 purchased ‘C’ schedule property. Thereafter, in the year 1983, Perianna Gounder settled the ‘A’ schedule property in favour of Subramani and Kandasamy. ‘D’ schedule property, which is also an agricultural land was purchased again by these two brothers viz., Subramani and Kandasamy. The simple and straight case of the plaintiff is that after the demise of her husband in the year 1984, she is entitled for the properties of Kandasamy (her husband). Or in other words, she is entitled for half share in ‘A, C and D’ schedule properties and 1/3rd share in ‘B’ schedule properties. With the above pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.515 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sangagiri for partition and possession and mesne profits as detailed in the plaint.

3. The second defendant filed written statement resisting the suit and the other defendants adopted the same. With regard to ‘B’ schedule property it is contended that there was subsequent oral partition amongst defendants 2 and 3 and Kandasamy in pursuance of Panchayat decision and the same was subsequently written up as partition list and under those circumstances, there is no question of enjoyment of ‘B’ schedule property either jointly or in common existing. The purchase of ‘C’ schedule property on 5.5.1980 by Subramani and Kandasamy was admitted as well as the settlement by first defendant on 7.5.1983 in favour of them. However with regard to ‘D’ schedule property, the stand taken is that there is no such property at all. The defendants would claim that plaintiff would not be entitled as Kandasamy had borrowed Rs.50,000 from second defendant and another Rs.90,000 from third parties and in April, 1986 in the presence of other family members and defendants 1 to 3 and relations, he (Kandasamy) wanted s econd defendant to discharge all debts and in return for all of his properties for which he will execute a pucca sale deed and under those circumstances, late Kandasamy deemed to have given up his right in all these properties. In paragraph 6 of the written statement it is contended that there was dissolution of marriage between plaintiff and late Kandasamy by a deed and that being so, plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own fraudulent act upon late Kandasamy. It is also pleaded that plaintiff has no right to claim partition nor can she ask the Court to overlook a substantial document of marriage dissolution deed.

4. The learned District Munsif, after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that plaintiff would be entitled for half share in item ‘A, C and D’ schedule properties and 1/3rd share in item ‘B’ schedule property, but however dismissed the suit on the ground that in the community to which the parties belong, there is a customary way of dissolution and that the marriage between the plaintiff and Kandasamy was dissolved by a deed of divorce viz. Ex.B-1 dated 25.10.1998. Being agg rieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.78 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Sangagiri. The learned Subordinate Judge also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

5. At the time of admission this Court framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether E