The judgment underscores the significance of pleadings in enabling parties to contest a case effectively and emphasizes the limitations on introducing new evidence or grounds in the appellate stage without prior pleadings.

This appeal has been filed by the second defendant challenging the ex parte decree dated 28.01.2011 passed in O.S.No.116 of 2009 against the defendants. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are:- The suit was laid by one of the daughters of Aranganathan, against her mother, sisters and brothers, claiming 1/5th share in the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that her father had purchased the suit property on 10.5.1958 and he died intestate on 2.1.1974 leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 as legal heirs. The 5th defendant is the wife of the third defendant and defendants 6 to 9 are their children. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff for partition the defendants are not amenable for amicable division and they are simply evading and postponing. Hence she issued a legal notice to the defendants on 1.5.2007 demanding partition of her share. Though the defendants 1, 4, 6 and 7 received the notice did not send any reply. The other defendants returned the notice as not claimed. Hence, she has filed the above suit for preliminary decree for partition and allot 1/5th share in the suit property.

3. Though the suit was filed in the year 2009 except 6th defendant others were ex parte on various stages of the suit. The 6th defendant represented by the counsel was also called absent on 25.1.2011. The defendants called absent and set ex parte.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition as prayed for?

2. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

5. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A12. Learned trial Court considering the Ex.A1 sale deed dated 10.05.1958 executed by one S.Govindan in favour of K.Aranganathan, father of the plaintiff and also Ex.A2 legal notice dated 01.05.2007 issued by the plaintiff and her evidence, passed a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property into 5 equal shares and allotted 1/5th share to the plaintiff. As against the preliminary decree the appeal came to be filed by the second defendant on the ground that admittedly the plaintiff and the defendant being Hindu, belong to Mitakshara School, after the death of the appellant's father on 02.01.1974, much prior to the Tamil Nadu amendment Act,1989 and the Central Amendment in the year 2004, in Hindu Succession Act came into force, his property become coparcenary property in the hands of his sons and their respective male issues and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share over the suit property as coparcenar and the amended Act does not confer any right on her.

6. In the appeal the appellant has filed C.M.P.No.19519 of 2016 to raise additional grounds, stating that the suit property was acquired out of the sale of the ancestral property dated 29.5.1958. As the plaintiff was not a coparcenar at the relevant time, she is not entitled to any share in the suit property.

7. Apart from the above application, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 is also filed by the appellant for reception of additional documents in C.M.P.No.19518 of 2016. In the above application it is the case of the petitioner that the properties are ancestral properties of Aranganathan and the plaintiff was married long back and get separated from the family as early as 1984. As the appellant has not availed the benefit of producing the documents before the trial Court, he has filed this application for reception of 8 additional documents namely original tax receipt of the appellant dated 16.05.1997, certified copy of sale deed dated 22.5.1958 as additional evidence in the appeal stage to show that ancestral property was sold in the year 1958 and his father had mortgaged the same property in the year 1961, one of the properties was sold in the year 1976 for the marr