Principles required for partition among alienees are not required for partition among family members.

This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1986 rendered in O.S.No.487 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Madurai thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellants herein against the respondents 1 to 8 praying to (a) confirm allotting the property described in ‘E’ schedule in the partition deed dated 6.9.1946 to the plaintiffs, (b) order partition and separate possession by metes and bounds of the properties described in schedules ‘D’ and ‘F’ of the partition deed dated 6.9.1946 into four shares and allot a portion of such share to the plaintiffs, (c) partition and separate possession by metes and bounds of the lands described in ‘B’ schedule of the plaint, (d) appoint a commission for the said purpose, (e) direct the defendants to pay the mesne profits and costs of the suit.

2. The plaint averments are that the properties mentioned in ‘A’ schedule are the houses bearing door No.80 in T.S.No.157/2 and door No.81 in T.S.No.157/1of East Marret Street inMadurai Town: that the properties mentioned in B schedule are the lands situate in Kodikkulam village: that the first plaintiff and defendants 1, 7 and 8 are the brothers: that the defendants 4 to 6 are the undivided sons of the 7th defendants: that defendants 2 and 3 are the alieniees of the 8th defendant: that the first plaintiff and his sons the second and third plaintiffs constitute a Hindu Joint Family and first plaintiff is the Manager of the said family.

3. The further averments of the plaint are that the properties shown in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules originally belonged to the joint family consisting of the first plaintiff, defendants 1, 7 and 8 and the late Lakshmana Iyer and their father Vasudeva Iyer and mother Kaveri Ammal: that Vasudeva Iyer effected partition of their properties under registered partition deed dated 6.9.1946 as per which ‘B’ schedule properties were allotted to the share of the first plaintiff. ‘F’ schedule properties were allotted to the parents with life estate and after their lifetime to be divided among their five sons viz., the first plaintiff and defendants 1, 7 and 8 and Lakshmana Iyer ‘D’ schedule properties were allotted to the share of Lakshmana Iyer.

4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that as per the terms of the said partition deed, E schedule property was allotted to the first plaintiff, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the same effecting the payment of taxes: that Lakshmana Iyer died a Bachelor and intestate in the year 1947 and the father Vasudeva Iyer died in 1955 and the mother Kaveri Ammal also died in 1962: that after the death of parents, the plaintiffs alone continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the whole house including ‘D’ Schedule and ‘F’ schedule properties: that on the death of Lakshmana Iyer, the first plaintiff and defendants 1, 7 and 8 are each entitled to 1/4 share in ‘D’ schedule: that the first plaintiff, defendants 1, 7 and 8 and their father Vasudeva Iyer were carrying on business in textiles under the name and style of “L.S.Vasudeva Iyer and Sons” as a partnership concern till 1978: that defendants 1, 7 and 8 were residing in different houses since they were not given any portion in the suit properly in the partition.

5. The further case of the plaintiffs as per the plaint averments is that during mid 1970, the defendants 1, 7 and 8 demanded their share in ‘D’ and ‘F’ schedule properties for which the first plaintiff agreed for the defendants 1, 7 and 8 respectively to reside in the Southern, Eastern and North-Eastern portions and that ‘D’ and ‘F’ schedules be divided by metes and bounds by separate document: that they started occupying those portions in the middle of 1970: that due to differences that arose among the ladyfolks in the family, they erected a wall North to South about the Deepavali time of 1971: that the contention of the defendants 1, 7 and 8 that they re-united mixed ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ schedule properties and divided them into fo