The main legal point established is that the nature of the property as joint family property influenced the validity of the partition and gift settlement deeds.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018 made in O.S.No.50 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Theni.)

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting partition, the present first appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit are as follows:

The plaintiffs and the defendant are the legal heirs of one Punniyamoorthy. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant are the brothers. The third plaintiff is the wife of Punniyamoorthy and mother of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant. The suit property was originally purchased as a vacant site by the said Punniyamoorthy and he has borrowed a loan from the Co-operative Society. The first plaintiff stood as a guarantor and he repaid the loan of Rs.3,19,000/- as on 30.06.2006. The suit property was enjoyed by them as a joint family property without any partition. As there was a dispute arose between the parties, there was a mediation. Pursuant to the same, a partition deed was executed between Punniyamoorthy and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant. Thereafter, as there was a dispute arose settling the loan amount, the registered partition deed was cancelled by Punniyamoorthy and the first plaintiff on 17.10.2006. The said Punniyamoorthy died on 17.03.2011. When the plaintiffs demanded amicable partition, the defendant refused to agree for partition. Thus, the plaintiffs have issued a legal notice to the defendant on 22.08.2013, for which, the defendant sent a reply notice stating that his father Punniyamoorthy executed a gift settlement deed in his favour on 11.04.2008 in respect of the suit property. The gift deed is not valid and null and void. Hence, the suit for partition.

4. The sole defendant filed a written statement stating that the father of the defendant Punniyamoorthy has earned huge wealth during his life time through Jewellery workshop profession. He has obtained housing loan from the Co-operative Society by pledging the title deed of vacant site. The first plaintiff was not the single guarantor for the loan obtained by Punniyamoorthy. The defendant was also a guarantor for the loan amount. The first plaintiff has created false documents and registered partition was effected on 04.04.2006. On that date itself, uneven partition was set right and it was also settled to repay the loan amount and it was signed by the first plaintiff and the defendant. As the first plaintiff has not acted upon, as per the terms of the partition deed, it was questioned by the defendant. Hence, the first plaintiff has cancelled the partition deed with mala fide intention. The said Punniyamoorthy had executed a Will dated 13.07.2007 in favour of the defendant. Thereafter, he also executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the defendant on 11.04.2008 in respect of a portion allotted to the defendant in the partition deed dated 04.04.2006. The third plaintiff does not know the details of the case. The third plaintiff was maintained by the defendant. A portion of the suit property was obtained by the defendant as per the gift settlement deed executed by his father Punniyamoorthy and it is his separate and exclusive property. Even though Punniyamoorthy has left the Will in respect of the entire property, the defendant is not claiming any right on the basis of the Will. The defendant has also repaid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and redeemed the mortgage created by Punniyamoorthy. He has also paid Rs.1,00,000/- to repay the loan amount obtained by Punniyamoorthy. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have received Rs.1,25,000/- by executing a mortgage deed in respect of a portion of the suit property. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintif