JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2015 in A.S.No.30 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Salem confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 120 of 2009 dated 14.12.2012 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Salem.)

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2015, passed in A.S.No.30 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2012, passed in O.S.No. 120 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Have not the Courts below misread Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act which has resulted in perverse findings warranting interference under Sec.100 CPC?

2. Are not the Courts below wrong in holding that the suit properties are separate properties of Sadaiyan, when admittedly he had got it in a partition as Karta of joint family consisting of father and his sons?

3. Are not the Courts below wrong in overlooking that any release/settlement by one co-parcener without the consent of other co-parceners is invalid?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties in the 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.

6. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs case, the suit property was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs 1 to 5 Kaveri, by way of a sale deed dated 17.08.1940 and enjoying the same and he died intestate leaving behind his wife Perumayammal and three sons, namely, the first defendant Sadayan, Madhu and Palani and accordingly contended that the first defendant Sadayan and his family members are each entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property and further put forth the case that Palani had executed a release deed in respect of his 1/4th share in favour of the first defendant Sadayan, Perumayammal and Madhu, by way of a release deed dated 25.04.1979 and accordingly contended that the plaintiffs and the first defendant, in all, is entitled to equal share in the suit property and inasmuch as the first defendant failed to allot the share of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property despite several demands and notice, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to institute the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

7. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs suit contending that the suit property is the separate and self acquired property of the first defendant's father Kaveri and after his demise, his legal heirs had derived equal share in the suit property and Palani had relinquished his share in the suit property in favour of Perumayammal, the first defendant and Madhu and further, it is also put forth that Madhu left the suit property by occupying another property and as per the family arrangement, the entire property was given to the first defendant and accordingly, the properties derived by the first defendant as abovestated could only be construed as his separate and self acquired property and hence, during his life time, his children cannot lay any claim of share in the suit property and the suit property is not the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the first defendant as put forth by the plaintiffs and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. Based on the available records and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.

9. It is not in dispute that the suit property had been purchased by Kaveri by way of the sale deed dated 17.08.1940, marked as Ex.A1. It is found that Kaveri had three sons, namely, the first defendant Sadayan, Madhu and Palani and he died le