The main legal principle established is that the partition deed and joint patta serve as crucial evidence of joint ownership, and the cancellation of an exclusive patta in favor of a joint patta supports the joint ownership of the property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C., praying against the order and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai dated 12.08.2015 made in L.A.O.P.No.1/2013.)

1. The 2nd claimant/Uthandi in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2013 claiming share in the compensation awarded by the Highways Department for the well acquired in S.No.280/1B2A, is the appellant herein. The 1st claimant/Srinivasan, who is the co-owner is the 1st respondent herein

2. The crux of the appeal is that the National Highways Department acquired vast extend of land for their project which includes the land belongs to family of Gopal Gounder family. An award was passed for a sum of Rs.30,66,124 in respect of 2nd item (Well) jointly owned by the claimants. Due to the dispute between the claimants regarding the apportionment of the compensation, the 2nd claimant/Uthandi being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal has preferred this appeal.

3. According to the appellant, the suit property originally belong to Gopal Gounder. It is a joint family property consisting of Gopal Gounder and his sons Kothandaraman, Uthandi and Srinivasan. On 27.06.1984, there was a partition between family members wherein the properties were allotted to the family members and after the partition, they were enjoying their respective shares allotted to them in the partition. The well Kavalaipadi, along with 5 H.P motor and electricity connection were allotted to the claimants Uthandi/2nd claimant and Srinivasan/1st claimant to share them equally. For the purpose of laying bypass road near Kilpennathur National Highways, 0.15.86 Hectare out of 0.32.5 Hectare of land in S.No.279/1 was acquired and assigned as S.No.279/1B. For the said land, a sum of Rs.2,77,391/- was awarded to the 1st claimant/Srinivasan. For 0.24.60 Hectare of land out of 0.42.5 Hectare of land in S.No.280/1B1 acquired and reassigned as S.No.280/1BA1 and a sum of Rs.4,30,254/- was awarded to the 1st claimant/Srinivasan. In S.No.280/1B2 a well in 0.01.64 Hectare was acquired and reassigned as S.No.280/1B2A. For the said well, a sum of Rs.26,89,592/- was awarded as compensation to Srinivasan. That apart, an old well in S.No.280/1B2 was valued at the cost of Rs.3,76,532/-. Srinivasan and Uthandi have equal rights in the said well.

4. The dispute is in respect of well situated in S.No.280/1B2A for which compensation fixed at Rs.26,89,592/-. The 1st claimant/Srinivasan claims absolute right over the said well, whereas the 2nd claimant Uthandi claims ½ share in it. When this matter was referred to Reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2013, the claim was considered by Reference Court in the light of the documents produced by the rival claimants and the claim was held in favour of the 1st claimant declaring him as absolute owner of well in S.No.280/1B2A and both the claimants are entitled to share the compensation amount, awarded for the well situated in S.No.280/1B3.

5. The 2nd claimant being aggrieved by the award which has dis-entitled to claim share in the compensation for the well situated in S.No.280/1B2A is before this Court by way of an appeal. The appellant, claims share in S.No.280/1B2A and the well submit that the family had two wells in the land acquired by the Highways Department and both were jointly held by the claimants 1 & 2. The reference Court, while rightly held that the appellant is entitled for ½ share in the well situated in S.No.280/1B3 erred in excluding the appellant in respect of well situated in S.No.280/1B2A.

6. Though accepting the partition deed entered between the family members on 27.06.1984, which is marked as Ex.C.1. The reference Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the well in the survey number is a common well and joint patta was issued by the Revenue Authorities based on the deed of partition dated 27.06.1984. The Revenue records were mutated by the Revenue Authorities in the year 1989. Based on which joint patta was issued in favour of the appellant and 1st responde