ORDER :

V. Bharathidasan, J.

1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, refusing to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 618 of 2015 and thereby dismissing the application of the petitioner in I.A. No. 119 of 2016 filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC.

2. The respondent is the sole plaintiff and the petitioners are defendants in the suit. The suit has been filed for a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and with reference to good and bad soil and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or from creating any encumbrance in the suit schedule property.

2.1. For the sake of convenience the parties in this revision will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the plaint.

2.2. According to the plaintiff, she is the daughter of the 1st defendant and the sister of the defendants 2 and 3. The suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Thavasimuthu Nadar. The said Thavasimuthu Nadar had four sons and the 1st defendant is one of the sons. In the year 1954, late Thavasimuthu Nadar and his four sons had entered into a partition of their ancestral properties and the plaintiff's father, the 1st defendant was allotted 14 Acres of land. The 1st defendant, thereafter, had by way of exchange of family properties, obtained a further extent of about 40.125 cents. Thus, the said Thavasimuthu Nadar originally owned 14 Acres and 40.125 cents. These properties are described as 1st item in the plaint schedule. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendants entitled to the 1st item of the suit properties. They have been in common and joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Each of them are entitled to equal share. The 1st defendant has been enjoying the suit property along with his sons and daughter treating the suit 1st item of the properties as joint family property and therefore, the plaintiff and the defendants are in common enjoyment. The 1st defendant has been treating the suit property as the ancestral joint family properties along with the plaintiff and his sons, the defendants 2 and 3 herein, even though the 1st defendant is shown as life estate holder in the family partition held in the year 1954.

2.3. The defendants, after the amendment to The Hindu Succession Act, recognized the plaintiff as a coparcener and promised to give her due share. But, suddenly, with a view to deprive the plaintiff's equal right in the family properties, the defendants have been postponing the partition. Since the defendants did not come forward for amicable partition, the plaintiff through her counsel issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to partition the properties and allot her due share. Instead of partitioning the properties, the defendants had sent a reply stating that the 1st defendant is only a life estate holder in the suit property as per the partition that took place in the year 1954 and therefore, the sons alone are the absolute owners and the 1st defendant has no absolute right over the suit properties. The defendants in the reply had further stated that the plaintiff is not a coparcener. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant father only had improved the suit properties from out of the ancestral income and sons have also recognized the father's deed and treated him as Kartha. The 1st defendant had also joined the defendants 2 and 3 in various sale transactions. Even though the father was shown as a life estate holder in the partition held in 1954, the properties were actually ancestral joint family properties and therefore, sons cannot claim absolute right over the same.

3. Pending suit, the defendants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC which is under revision seeking to reject the plaint. The above application was filed on the