The main legal point established is that the rights of coparceners and the devolution of property are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the concept of locus standi is crucial in determining the entitlement to claim relief.

A. Selvam, J.

1. Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the Judgment and decree dated 19.09.2008 passed in Original Suit No.215 of 2004 by the Additional District & Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No. I, Tiruchirapalli.

2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.215 of 2004 on the file of the trial Court praying to pass a preliminary decree in respect of 1/3 share of the plaintiff, wherein the present respondents 1 to 6 have been shown as defendants.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Chinnathu Muthuraja. The fourth defendant is the son of second defendant. The fifth defendant is the wife of second defendant. The sixth defendant is the wife of third defendant. The erstwhile Hindu joint family consisted of Chinnathu Muthuraja and his three sons, has had owned extensive properties and with regard to same, a registered partition has come into existence on 24.09.1970, wherein 'A & B' schedule properties have been allotted to the shares of Chinnathu Muthuraja and his wife; 'C' schedule property has been allotted to the share of first defendant; 'D' schedule property has been allotted to the share of second defendant and 'E' schedule property has been allotted to the share of third defendant. The plaintiff being the son of the first defendant has become a coparcener. The first defendant has instituted a suit for partition in Original Suit No.283 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, wherein the defendants 2 and 3 have been shown as defendants. In Original Suit No.283 of 1978 compromise has been effected. The first defendant has been acting against the interest of the plaintiff and he is at the hands of the remaining defendants. Since the plaintiff is a coparcener in the joint family consists of himself and first defendant he is having 1/3 share in the suit properties and in order to work out his remedy, the present Suit has been instituted for the relief sought for therein.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 2 and 3 and adopted by the defendants 4 and 5 is averred as follows:

It is true that erstwhile joint family consisted of Chinnathu Muthuraja and his three sons who have been arrayed as defendants 1 to 3. It is also true that on 24.09.1970 a registered partition has been effected amongst them, wherein 'A & B' schedule properties have been allotted to the shares of parents, whereas, 'C to E' schedule properties have been allotted to the shares of the defendants 1 to 3. The said Chinnathu Muthuraja has passed away in the year 1973 and his wife has passed away in the year 1975. After their demise, with regard to properties allotted to them, the father of the plaintiff who has been arrayed as first defendant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.283 of 1978, wherein a compromise has been effected. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the present Suit with regard to suit properties and therefore, the present Suit deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the Suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present Appeal Suit has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiff as appellant.

6. Before perpending the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to narrate the following admitted facts on the basis of the rival pleadings put forth on either side.

7. It is an admitted fact that Chinnathu Muthuraja and his three sons who have been arrayed as defendants 1 to 3 have constituted Hindu joint family and amongst them a registered partition has come into existence on 24.09.1970, wherein 'A and B' schedule properties have been allotted to the shares of Chinnathu Muthuraja and his wife. It is also equally an admitted fact that the Ch