The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the suit properties as separate properties or coparcenary properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is crucial in determining the entitlement of the parties to the relief of partition.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem, made in O.S.No.56 of 2010, dated 26.07.2013.

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2013, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem in O.S.No.56 of 2010, in and by which, the suit for partition and declaration declaring that the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 as null and void, was dismissed by the Trial Court.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant/Raman Pillai, is the father of the first plaintiff/Maheswari and the fourth defendant/Kumar. He was first married to one Sivagamiammal and through his first marriage, the second defendant/Bakkiyalakshmi and the third defendant/Tamilselvi were born. Thereafter, he got married to the second plaintiff/Anandayee and through the second defendant, the first plaintiff/Maheswari and the fourth defendant/Kumar were born. The suit properties were the ancestral properties in the hands of the first defendant/Raman Pillai. Some items of the suit properties were purchased by the first defendant/Raman Pillai, out of the income from the said joint family nucleus. The said Raman Pillai had illegally settled majority of the items in the suit properties in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by a settlement deed dated 02.07.2009, except in respect of one item of the suit properties. Therefore, the said settlement deed, which is executed without any valid right, title or interest whatsoever is liable to be declared as null and void and the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/6 shares in the suit properties.

C. The Written Statement :

3. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. It is the case of the defendants that the first defendant is the father and one Kamala @ Sivagami, who died, was the mother of the defendants 2 and 3. As far as the second plaintiff/Anandayee is concerned, she was married only to Velu Asari and it was through him only, the fourth defendant/Kumar and the first plaintiff/Maheswari were born, and therefore, the genealogy as in the plaint, was denied. As stated in paragraph No.6 of the written statement, as far as the self-acquired properties are concerned, the defendant has executed a settlement deed, and for the rest of the properties, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right as they are not members of the joint family and therefore, both the plaintiffs cannot claim 1/6th share each.

D. The Issues :

4. On the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the 2nd plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant and the 1st plaintiff and 4th defendant are children born between them?

2) Whether suit property is the joint family property?

3) Whether suit property covered in sale deed dated 30.10.1961 purchased from the income of the joint family?

4) Whether the plaintiffs are having 2/6 shares in the suit property?

5) Whether the settlement deeds executed by 1st defendant dated 2.7.2009 is void?

6) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession as prayed for?

7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

8) To what other relief plaintiffs are entitled to?

E. The Evidence :

5. The first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and the second plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, the third defendant/Tamilselvi, was examined as D.W.1 and one Velusamy, who was the original husband of the second plaintiff/Anandayee, was examined as D.W.2. and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.

F. The Findings of the Trial Court :

6. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to consider the case of the parties, and by a judgment dated 26.07.2013, it found that even as per the plaintiffs, since the prop