Validity of partition deed, entitlement of legal heirs to claim partition, and the status of properties as joint family assets were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tirupathur, Vellore District, dated 06.09.2010.)

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and Decree dated 06.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tirupathur, Vellore District, the defendants 1 to 6 and 8th defendant had filed the present First Appeal.

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

3. Suit for partition and mense profits.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit properties comprised in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 belonged to Murugesa Mudaliar ancestrally as well as by way of purchase. Murugesa Mudaliar died intestate during 1982. After his demise, the properties left behind him were enjoyed by his legal heirs and the first plaintiff is the wife of the deceased K.M. Kuppusamy and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased K.M. Kuppusamy. K.M. Kuppusamy is the son of the deceased Murugesa Mudaliar. K.M. Kuppusamy died on 07.11.1993. The deceased Kanchana is the daughter of the deceased Murugesa Mudaliar and she died leaving behind her daughters namely the defendants 9 and 10 and the 11th defendant is her husband. K.M. Kuppusamy had been suffering from ill-health for a considerable period of time and thereafter lost his consciousness and died on 07.11.1993. After his demise, inasmuch as the plaintiffs were unable to enjoy the properties left behind by Murugesa Mudaliar jointly along with the defendants, they demanded the partition and separate possession of their shares, however the defendants had been delaying the same and when the plaintiffs insisted for the allotment of their shares, it was represented by the defendants 1 to 3 that the properties had already been divided amongst the defendants 1 to 3 on 18.10.1993 and therefore there is no need for effecting another partition and thereafter the plaintiffs applied for the copy of the partition deed dated 18.10.1993 and found that the above said partition deed had been effected by the defendants 1 to 3 and K.M. Kuppusamy while he was not in a fit state of health and it is highly fraudulent. K.M. Kuppusamy had singed in the above said partition deed. Furthermore, the other legal heirs of Murugesa Mudaliar had not been joined in the above said partition deed. The above said partition deed had been brought by taking advantage of the ill health of K.M. Kuppusamy and due to the compulsion exerted on him by the defendants 1 to 3 and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to ignore the above said partition deed. As per the partition deed dated 18.10.1993, the property lying in Kolar gold fields had been allotted to the share of K.M. Kuppusamy, however the above said property had been acquired by the first plaintiff by selling the jewels offered to her as stridhana as well as by alienating the share given to her in her family and the house had been put up in the said property out of the income derived from K.M. Kuppusamy as well as by the sale of jewels belonging to the first plaintiff and suppressing the same, the above said property had been included as the joint family property in the partition deed dated 18.10.1993 and the same had come to the allotted to the share of K.M. Kuppusamy. The other properties had been taken by the defendants 1 to 3. The defendants by exercising compulsion had obtained the signature of K.M. Kuppusamy when he was fighting for his health in the hospital and therefore the above said partition is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Furthermore, K.M. Kuppusamy even during his life time had chosen to alienate the property said to have been allotted to him by entering into a sale agreement to third parties and also received an advance amount and therefore the case of the defendants that the above said propertie