JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 and made in O.S.No.106 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in their suit for partition are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs are daughters of one Mr.Balakrishnan Padayachi, who died interstate in the year 1978. Their mother Valliammai died in the year 2004. Mr.Balakrishnan Padayachi and Valliammai had four sons and three daughters. While two daughters had joined together and filed suit for partition, alleging that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property after the demise of Balakrishnan Padayachi, the other daughters and sons have contested the suit for partition alleging that, the plaintiffs have no interest in the estate of their father’s property. According to the defendants the properties which are left by Mr.Balakrishnan Padayachi was divided among the male members as per the partition deed dated 25.07.1991 and same has been acted upon. Further alienation of the suit properties has been effected 18 years prior to the suit and the plaintiffs were aware of all those facts, had filed the suit for partition with ulterior motive though they have no rights in the properties.

3. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the properties left by Mr.Balakrishnan Padayachi, who died in the year 1978 as interstate. Even if the plaintiffs have any right, same has been extinguished.

4. The brief summary of the pleadings before the Trial Court are as below:-

Balakrishnan Padayachi and his wife Valliammai had three daughters and four sons. Balakrishnan Padayachi acquired the suit properties through his hard earning by cultivating lands taken on lease. He had no ancestral property worth mentioning. Balakrishnan Padayachi died interstate in the year 1978 and his wife Valliammai died in the year 2004. Till then, the relationship between the sons and daughters of Balakrishnan Padayachi and Valliammai was cordial and the plaintiffs use to visit the parents home whenever occasion requires. One of the daughter of Balakrishnan Padayachi namely Pachiammal, who is the 1st defendant in the suit had given her daughter married to Ganesan, who is one of the sons of Balakrishnan Padayachi. The suit properties were treated and enjoyed as joint family properties and behind their back, the sons of Balakrishnan Padayachi had secretly registered the partition deed dated 25.07.1991 excluding the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, who are the daughters of Balakrishnan Padayachi. The said partition will not bind them and the question of acquiescence will arise since they were not put to notice about the partition. After the demise of her mother, the relationship got strained and when the plaintiffs sought financial assistance from their bothers and division of properties to meet out the family expense, they refuse to share the father’s property with them and hence, notice was issued on 15.04.2006 to come forward and give their share. They denied to give their share by causing reply notice. Hence the present suit has been filed.

5. The 1st defendant/Pachaiammal, who is one of the daughters of Mr.Balakrishnan Padayachi had supported the partition deed dated 25.07.1991 entered between the sons of Balakrishnan Padayachi. According to her written statement she along with her two sisters have given up their right and abandoned their right in favour of the male members of the family and with their knowledge, the partition was effected on 25.07.1991.

6. The 3rd defendant/Palani @ Narayanasami has filed written statement contending that the suit for partition is barred by limitation and the suit suffers without any cause of action with invented fact