The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of relevant legal provisions, such as Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, in determining ownership and entitlement to claim partition.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2015 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.36 of 2006 dated 19.12.2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.)

1. In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore at Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.36 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ranipet.

2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

i. Whether the Courts below have committed legal error in admitting and clubbing the “B” Schedule property belonged to mother Valliammal in the partition claim, by construing as joint family property, ignoring section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

ii. Whether the Courts below have committed legal error in countenancing the claim of the respondent/plaintiff for partition with regard to “B” schedule property belonged to mother Valliammal who disposed of the same in her own life time by executing two settlement deeds dated 21.04.1997 and 25.04.1997 marked under Exs.B19 and B20 respectively in exercise of her rights u/s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

iii. Whether the Courts below have committed jurisdictional error in declaring the two settlement deeds dated 21.04.1997 and 25.04.1997 marked under Exs.B19 and B20 executed by mother Vallliammal in favour of the second appellant with regard to “B” schedule property as illegal and invalid suo motu, unilaterally, without any challenge to the same as per law established by the respondent/plaintiff with necessary pleadings in the plaint in accordance with Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

5. Suit for partition and mense profits.

6. The Courts below had granted the relief of partition in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for in respect of the items 1 to 8 described in the plaint A schedule, item 10 described in the plaint B schedule and accordingly granted the relief of partition and mense profits in favour of the plaintiff with reference to the abovesaid items and granted the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of the other items of the plaint schedule properties. Against the determination of the Courts below declining the partition in respect of the suit items as above pointed out, the plaintiff has not preferred any challenge.

7. From the pleas setout by the respective parties, it is found that the plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesa Naicker and Valliammal. Both the plaintiff and the defendants have pleaded that the plaint A schedule properties belonged to Natesa Naicker and the plaint B schedule properties belonged to Valliammal. As regards the plaint C schedule properties, as there has been no challenge putforth by the plaintiff, challenging the dismissal of the same by the Courts below, it is unnecessary to consider the issues qua the plaint C schedule properties as putforth by the respective parties.

8. The plaint A schedule properties belonging to Natesa Naicker and when it is admitted that the plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs of Natesa Naicker, it is found that on the demise of Natesa Naicker, the plaintiff and the defendants would be each entitled to equal share in the plaint A schedule properties. However the defendants would putforth the case that Valliammal and the defendants 1 and 2 had e