JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 25 of 2013, dated, 25.02.2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 292 of 2005, dated, 02.11.2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

1. The 6th defendant is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the 1st schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for partition of the 2nd schedule properties and grant him 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court rejected the prayer for declaration and recovery of possession. But granted the alternative relief of partition of 1/6th share in 3rd item of the 1st schedule, 1/7th share in item 1 and 2 of 1st schedule and items 1 to 3 of 2nd schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to items 4 to 8 in the 2nd schedule property. As against the same, the 1st defendant filed A.S. No. 25 of 2013 before Additional Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The First Appellate Court restricted the decree for partition with regard to 3rd item of 2nd schedule property alone granting 1/7th share. With regard to the other reliefs, the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. As against the same, the 6th defendant has filed the present second appeal.

3. The plaintiff has contended that one Karuppayi, is the 1st wife of the 1st defendant and the 5th defendant is the 2nd wife of the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the 6th defendant are the children through the 1st wife. The defendants 2 to 4 are the children through the 2nd wife, namely, the 5th defendant. The plaintiff had further contended that the 1st schedule property is part of the 2nd schedule property. The 1st defendant, namely, his father had married one Karuppi Ammal (1st wife), 40 years back. While the plaintiff was 4 years old, the plaintiff's mother Karuppi Ammal had passed away and 2 years thereafter, the 1st defendant had married the 5th defendant.

4. According to the plaintiff, all the siblings are living as a joint family and based upon the joint family income, the properties have been purchased in the name of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff further contended that the 1st item in the 2nd schedule property was also purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, using the joint family income. Though the 7th item in the 2nd schedule property stands in the name of the 5th defendant, the same is also treated as a joint family property. The plaintiff further contended that the other items in the 2nd schedule property have been purchased though in the name of the defendants 2 to 4, all the properties have to be treated only as a joint family property. The plaintiff further contended that there was an oral partition 10 years back, under which, the plaintiff and the defendants have been enjoying the suit schedule property separately and the said family arrangement has also come into force. Based upon the said family arrangements, revenue records have also been mutated in their respective names. The plaintiff insisted the defendants to execute a registered document in accordance with the oral partition in order to carry out mutations in the revenue records and assessment of property tax. The defendants did not comply with the said request. Hence, the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In case, if the Court come to a conclusion that still the properties remain undivided, an alternative prayer was sought for partition of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties.

5. The defendants 1 to 5 filed a written statement, admitting the relationship between the parties. The defendants further contended that the suit 1st