C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.247 of 2004, challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.08.2005, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.

2. O.S. No.247 of 2004, had been filed by the appellant, Karuppayammal, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed one half share in the suit properties. In the suit schedule, the plaintiff had mentioned thirteen items. Item No.1 of the suit property is a land measuring 77 cents out of 3 acres and 48 cents, in Survey No.347/A1, in Palapatti Village, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District. The Item Nos. 2 to 13 of the suit properties are also vacant lands in Survey No.179/1B-0.45.5 Hectares, Survey No.179/1E - 0.06.6 Hectares, Survey No.181/5-0.11.5 Hectares, Survey No.182/3C-0.14.5 Hectares, Survey No.181/1-0.07.5 Hectares, Survey No.182/3A-0.08.0 Hectares, Survey No.321/1B6-0.16.5 Hectares, Survey No.321/1B2-0.13.5 Hectares, Survey No.321/1B3-0.04.0 Hectares, Survey No. 152/2-0.3.11 acres, Survey No.151/2A-0.0.17 cents and Survey No.176/2-0.5.41 Hectares.

3. In the plaint, the plaintiff had stated that the first defendant, R. Samiyappa Goundar, was her father and the third defendant Mariyammal was her mother. During subsistence of the marriage between them, the first defendant married the fourth defendant one Arukkaniyammal, as his second wife. They had a son namely, Boopathy, who is the second defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that there was another son, born to the first and the third defendants, namely, Ramasamy, who was not shown as a defendant in the suit because there was an oral partition between him and the first defendant and some properties were allotted to him. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties are available for partition. She further claimed that the first defendant married the fourth defendant during the subsistence of his marriage with the third defendant. Hence, the fourth defendant would not have any share and the second defendant would get a share from the father's properties alone. Consequently, the suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.

4. In the written statement, it had been stated that the properties have been purchased on 10.10.1975 and further by gift deeds dated 03.03.1998 and 22.08.1983, the suit properties had already been gifted to the second defendant and two other sons and to the brothers of the first defendant. It had also been stated that the third defendant had left the house in the year 1975 and was living separately. It was further stated that the other son Ramasamy, was not joined as a party and further the properties allotted by oral partition were not included in the suit and consequently, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and for seeking impartial partition.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned Additional District Court/Fast-Track Court, Dindigul, had framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to one half share in the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne of profits?

3. Whether the plaintiff is a coparcener and has a joint ownership in the suit property?

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

6. During the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. On the side of the defendant, the first defendant examined himself as DW-1 and also examined four other individual witnesses as DW-2 to DW-5. On the side of the plaintiff, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12, were marked. On the side of the defendants, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.12, were also marked. Among the documents filed on the side of the plaintiff, Ex.A.2, dated, 31.10.1980, is the partition deed between Samiyappan and Mariyammal, Ex.A.5, dated 03.03.1998, is the settlement deed executed by Rengappa Gounder in the name of the second respondent, Ex-A6, Ex-A7, Ex-A8 and Ex-A9 are pattas in the name of