JUDGMENT :

Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 CPC and Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.260/2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu dated 12.12.2017.

[Virtual Mode]

1. The above Appeal Suit has been preferred by the defendants in the suit in OS.No.260/2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram.

2. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs filed the suit in OS.No.260/2009 for partition and separate possession of their 2/4th share in the suit property. The suit property is an extent of about 58 cents comprised in S.Nos.192/3 and 192/4 in Pudupakkam Village, Thiruporur Sub Registration District.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property which is described as a Nanja land, is the absolute property of the plaintiffs' mother Tmt.Amma Kannammal and that she acquired the said property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 16.02.1970. Stating that Tmt.Amma Kannammal died intestate in the year 1998, the plaintiffs came forward with the suit for partition as the legal heirs of the deceased Tmt.Amma Kannammal.

4. The suit was contested mainly by the 2nd defendant by filing a detailed written statement which was adopted by the 1st defendant. It is the case of the 2nd defendant that the father of plaintiffs and defendants died in the year 1982 while the 2nd defendant was very young. Though Tmt.Amma Kannammal had managed her family and celebrated marriages of the 2nd plaintiff and defendants, it is stated that the 2nd defendant had some physical problem, for which the mother was always worrying.

5. It is the further case of the 2nd defendant that their mother had advised all her sons that the suit property should be given to the 2nd defendant as sridhana. It is further stated that all the three brothers agreed to this course and that therefore, they handed over the suit property to the 2nd defendant immediately after the death of their mother Tmt.Amma Kannammal.

6. It is further stated that the marriage of the 2nd defendant was celebrated later on 23.06.1993. It is on the basis of such oral arrangement, the 2nd defendant contested the suit on the ground that the suit property is under the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the 2nd defendant and that she is alone the absolute owner of the property. It is also stated by the 2nd defendant that she had settled the suit property to her minor daughter by a registered document dated 06.07.2009. It was further contended that the daughter of the 2nd defendant has filed another suit in OS.No.401/2009 before the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, against the plaintiff.

7. The Trial Court framed a specific issue, whether the suit property was given as sridhana to the 2nd defendant at the time of marriage, and found that the 2nd defendant miserably failed to prove her case regarding the settlement / arrangement as pleaded by the 2nd defendant. Though no ground was raised in the written statement, during the course of argument, it was suggested before the Court that Tmt.Amma Kannammal had one more son by name Shankar and that, he had not been impleaded as a party. The Trial Court, by relying upon the admission of PW1 during his cross-examination that the plaintiffs had one more brother by name Shankar and that he was not impleaded as a party as his whereabouts are not known, granted a decree for 2/5th share by stating that such course would meet the ends of justice. Except granting the decree for partition, the suit was dismissed as regards the prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present Appeal Suit is preferred by the defendants.

8. It is unfortunate to note that in the Memorandum of Grounds, several grounds are raised without touching the issues on the basis of which the decree is challenged. Except stating that the 2nd appellant herein is in continuous possession of the suit property f