JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2007 made in O.S.No.41 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Additional District and Sessions Court), Dindigul.)

Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for partition, the present Appeal Suit has been filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief fact leading to file this appeal reads as follows:-

The suit properties are joint family property and they originally belonged to one Marimuthu Pillai. He died intestate in the year 1978 left behind the plaintiffs and defendants and his mother as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 4 are the sisters and brothers. The plaintiffs 3 to 7 are the legal heirs of one Loganayagi, who is the daughter of Marimuthu Pillai, the defendants 2, 3, 10 and 11 are the legal heirs of one Ramasamy Pillai, who is the son of the Marimuthu Pillai. Till the death of Marimuthu Pillai, the properties were managed by him and after his death, it was agreed that the properties have to be managed by his wife, namely, Manikathammal with the help of the first defendant. At that time, the first defendant was living in Iyyalur Village. It is also agreed that the income of the properties should be divided equally. At the advice of some of the family members, the said Manikathammal was managing all the properties till her death. The plaintiffs and defendants also parted with income of the property all those years. Suddenly, the defendants 1 to 3, 10 and 11 with the help of the fourth defendant refused to give any share, after death of the said Manikathammal on 20.06.1998. Therefore, the first plaintiff has issued legal notice on 27.07.1998 to the defendants 1 to 3, which was replied with untenable allegations. The allegations found in the reply are fictitious and created for the case. The said Marimuthu Pillai has never given any of his property to the first defendant. Even if it is valid, it is sham and nominal. The said Marimuthu Pillai has never parted with the possession of the property and remaining property have never been divided till now. Hence, the suit has been filed for partition.

4. The first defendant has filed written statement admitting the relationship of the parties. It is the contention of the first defendant that after the death of the father, dispute arose between the sharers and at that time at the instance of the well-wishers of the family, family arrangement came into force. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and mother of the plaintiffs 3 to 8 were present and accepted the same whole-heartedly.. In pursuant to the same, partition deed was executed on 25.04.1980. The first defendant was allotted to item Nos.1 to 10 and the father of the defendants 2 and 3 was allotted to A schedule property in the said partition and some items were allotted to the said Manikathammal for life time. After the said Manikathammal died in the year 1998, the defendants 1 to 3 become absolute owners of the properties. The defendants 1 to 3 are enjoying the property allotted by their mother openly and continuously beyond the statutory period by ouster and adverse possession. The allegation that the mother was requested to manage the property is also denied. The said Manikathammal has never managed the property. The allegation that the plaintiffs parted with the income of the property and revenue records also changed in their name, is also denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The above submissions are adopted by the defendants 2 and 3.

5. The trial Court has framed five issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.27 were marked. Based on the above evidence and materials, the trial Court has dismissed the suit, holding that the suit property was already partitioned in a family arrangement and t