The unregistered koorchit was valid and acted upon, and the subsequent conduct of the parties proved that the property was purchased from separate income, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right in the suit property.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.26 of 2006 by the I Fast Track Court, Additional District Judge, Chengalpet.

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.26 of 2006 by the I Fast Track Court, Additional District Judge, Chengalpet.

2. Parties to the litigation:

Rangasamy Reddiar had two sons and a daughter by name, Boologam Reddiar, Balaraman Reddiar and Boobathy ammal. Both sons predeceased Rangasamy Reddiar during the year 1983. Rangasamy Reddiar, Wife Kakkammal died in the year 22/01/1985. Rangasamy Reddiar died on 29/09/1994. His daughter Boopathi Ammal is the plaintiff in the suit for partition. Pending suit, she died and her legal heirs had entered into her shoes. The defendants 1 to 4 are the widow and children of Boologam Reddiar and the fifth defendant is the widow of Balarama Reddiar.

3. Relief sought:

When the suit for partition laid in the year 1994 and taken on file as O.S.No.272/1994 by the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu (later transferred to the Additional District Court -FTC, Chengalpattu and renumbered as O.S.No.26/2006), the plaintiff claimed 41/180 shares. On the premise, the suit properties are the joint family properties of Rangasamy Reddiar and his two sons. Later, after the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with effect from 09/09/2005, the relief was altered to 1/3rd share in the suit property. After full trial, the trial court dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal.

4. The plaint averment in brief:

Rangasamy Reddiar acquired part of the suit properties under the registered partition deed dated 05/07/1958. From the income of this ancestral properties, Rangasamy Reddiar purchased the other properties either in his name or in the name of his two sons. They had no separate income and all the properties acquired subsequent to the partition are only accretion to the ancestral joint family property of Rangasamy Reddiar. A house at T.Nagar was purchased in the name of Boologam Reddiar and Balaramam Reddiar from the joint family property income. Land in Chenglepattu was purchased in the name of the first defendant Ranganayakiammal, W/o Boologam Reddiar. The first defendant had no separate income of her own. While so, in the year 1983, Boologam Reddiar and Balaramam Reddiar died one after another. At that time, their mother Kakkammal was alive. After the death of both his sons, as sole male member and kartha of the family, the suit properties were managed by Rangasamy Reddiar. On 22/01/1985 Kakammal died, followed by Rangasamy Reddiar on 29/09/1994. After the demise of Rangasamy Reddiar, the suit property is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants. When the plaintiffs want to divide the properties of Rangasamy Reddiar amicable, the defendants evading and also came to know that they are trying to alienate the property. In view of the hostile attitude of the defendants, the plaintiffs have approached the Court. The sixth defendant is the purchaser of 7th item property. He is the purchaser pendent lite. Hence, he is impleaded as party defendant.

5. Written statements:

The fourth defendant filed Written Statement wherein he has stated that, the suit is highly vexatious and unsustainable both in law and as well as facts. The partition dated 05/07/1958 between Rangasamy Reddiar, Babu Reddiar and two others, is true. Subsequently, there was partition between Rangasamy Reddiar and his two sons viz Boologam Reddiar and Balaraman Reddiar. It was an oral partition effected in the presence of village elders. The same was reduced into writing (koor chit) on 10/08/1958 and acted upon. They all got separated and enjoying their respective shares separately and dealt it independently. The status of joint family properties ceased thereafter. From out of the income derived from such properties, each of them have acq