The main legal point established in the judgment is that the partition deed dated 27.11.2000 is a valid document binding upon the plaintiffs, and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share each and also not entitled for measne profits and delivery of possession of their share.

1. Suit for partition of the suit property by Metes and Bounds and hand over separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/6th share each in the Suit Schedule property; appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the Suit Schedule Property having metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs in possession of their respective 1/6th share in the Suit property; iii) directing the Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by this Court to ascertain the mesne Profits from the Suit Property and direct the defendants to pay the plaintiffs their respective 1/6th share until the plaintiffs 1/6th shares are delivered to them ; declare that the Partition Deed under Document No.867/2000 alleged to have been executed on 27.11.2000 to be null and void and declare that the Settlement Deed under Document No.455/2010 dated 10.2.2010 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void.

2. The suit property is a land and building at New No.22, Old No.13, Manickeswari Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, measuring 7200 sq.ft in re-survey number 3130 of Purasawalkam Village. This property originally belonged to one Mr.Ramadas, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and the 1st defendant. He purchased the property under a sale deed dated 10.7.1955 and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment till his death. He died intestate on 6.8.1976 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are entitled for 1/6th share in the property.

3. The first plaintiff was residing in the property along with the first defendant and other sharers were married and settled at different places, but used to visit and stay in the family house along with the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant was entrusted with the documents of the property with the belief that he will maintain the family house as he is the eldest and the only son of the family. However, he has not administered the property properly and evaded any meeting with the family. Therefore, a legal notice dated 10.3.2010 was issued calling upon the 1st defendant for the partition of the suit property. However, the 1st defendant alleged a family arrangement and execution of a partition deed dated 27.11.2000 and thereby claiming exclusive right over the property. He has also created a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant to deprive the rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit is filed for a partition and also to set aside the partition deed dated 27.11.2000 and settlement deed dated 10.2.2010.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement interalia stating that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right and interest in the property way back in 1981 in a oral partition in favour of the 1st defendant and the present suit is filed after three decades and therefore, barred by limitation. The daughters have not inherited the co-parcenery property. The plaintiffs have ratified the oral partition by way of family arrangement in writing on 18.8.1995 and the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the validity of the family arrangement and the partition deed dated 27.11.2000. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

5. Based on the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share each in the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Mesne profits of 1/6th share each till delivery of possession of their respective shares in the suit property?

3. Whether the partition deed dated 27.11.2000 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration that the settlement deed dated 10.02.2010 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs?

5. Whether the defendants are not in a fiduciary position and in the position of Trust and confidence and vice-versa the plaintiffs and are