1. In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.58 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichengode.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for partition, separate possession and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff and the defendants are the Pangalees and their fathers were also Pangalees by relation and fathers of the parties intestate jointly owned the properties comprised in R.S.No.21 Hectares 2.47.0, R.S.No.22 Hectares 1.69.0, R.S.No.23 Hectares 1.06.0, R.S.No.24 Hectares 1.13.5 totally Hectares 6.35.5 [15.70 acres] and R.S.No.25 Hectares 1.94.5 [4.80 acres] of Modamangalam village by self acquisition and inheritance and accordingly R.S.Nos.21,22,23 and 24 jointly belonged to the plaintiff's father and the father of the defendants 1 to 4 and R.S.No.25 jointly belongs to the plaintiff and the 5th defendant alone. On 05.05.1967 in R.S.Nos.21,22,23 and 24, the plaintiff's father Kandhappa Gounder had purchased 0.78 ¾ acres with 1/16th share in the well in R.S.No.24/12 and the 3 Anganna house in R.S.No.22/01 of Modamangalam village by way of a sale deed and enjoyed it jointly with the fathers of the defendants 1 to 4 till his intestate death long back. On 30.05.1977, the plaintiff has purchased acres 3.83 ½ in R.S.Nos.21,22,23,24 and 25 by way of a registered sale deed, again on 04.06.1977, the plaintiff has purchased 1/8th share out of 0.75 acres in R.S.No.24/12 by way of a registered sale deed and it is a well portion. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to 3/16th share in the well in R.S.No.24/12. Upon the intestate deaths of the fathers of the parties inter-se the plaintiff and the defendants have all along been enjoying the suit properties in common without any valid, regular partition among them and enjoying their respective shares, which they have inherited and self acquired and by paying necessary Kists and the properties comprised in R.S.Nos.21,22,23 and 24 are described as item 1 of the suit properties and the property comprised in R.S.No.25 is described as item 2 of the suit properties. In item 1, the plaintiff is entitled to acres 4.71 ¼ with 3/16th share in the well in R.S.No.24/12 and 3 Anganna house by inheritance, self acquisition, the remainder belongs to the defendants 1 to 4. In item 2, the plaintiff and the fifth defendant each are entitled to half share. In the year 1994, the defendants 1 to 3 alone excluding the plaintiff had entered into a registered partition deed, the said document is void and unenforceable in law and cannot be acted upon. As the plaintiff is feeling inconvenient to be joint in status and accordingly requested the defendants for amicable partition of his share which he is entitled to as above stated. On the other hand, the defendants without providing the plaintiff's share by way of a partition are attempting to alienate the suit properties including the plaintiff's share to the third parties and accordingly it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. After denying all the plaint averments, the defendants would contend that there are no properties exist on ground as described in the plaint schedule and the suit properties had been already partitioned orally very long back during the life time of the ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendants and accordingly, they were enjoying their respective properties without anyone interruption including the plaintiff's ancestors and the plaintiff upto the laying of the suit by the plaintiff and in accordance with the oral partition and the possession being enjoyed by the respective sharers