The burden of proof regarding the validity of a document rests on the party challenging it, and a suit for partial partition is not maintainable without including all properties liable for division.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 & Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC as against the Judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 passed in O.S No.646 of 2011 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.)

(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

This appeal has been filed, challenging the Judgment and decree, dated 30.07.2014, passed in O.S.No.646 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as “plaintiffs" and "defendant" as has been arrayed before the trial Court”.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

The property described in the plaint schedule is the self-acquired properties of late Kaliathal @ Kaliammal. The plaintiffs and the defendant are the children of late Kaliathal @ Kaliammal. On 12.12.2010, the said Kaliathal @ Kaliammal died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendant as her legal heirs. The Plaintiffs further stated that their father predeceased their mother. Therefore, as per the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs and the defendant are the legal heirs of late Kaliathal @ Kaliammal and they are entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit property. The plaintiffs and the defendant are the co-owners of the suit schedule property. It is stated that for a period of one year prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs have been demanding the defendant to agree for amicable partition, but the defendant has been evading the same. Hence, the suit filed for partition.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement stating that the relationship between the parties are admitted. However, the allegation that the plaintiffs and the defendant are the co-owners of the suit schedule property is false. It is stated that during her life time, her mother late Kaliathal @ Kaliammal, out of love and affection towards her, had executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated 29.07.2010 in her favour and handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to her. From the date of execution of Gift Settlement Deed, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also mutated her name in all the Revenue Records. The Plaintiffs are fully aware of the execution of the registered gift deed dated 29.07.2010, however, by suppressing the Gift Settlement Deed, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition. In view of the execution of the settlement deed in her favour, the suit for partition is not maintainable. The property described in the plaint is not feasible of division. The plaintiffs have no right to file the suit for partition as there is no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. A reply statement was filed by the plaintiffs by stating that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 29.07.2010 said to have been executed by late Kaliathal @ Kaliammal in favour of the defendant is a forged and created document. The mother of the plaintiffs and defendant had not executed any such Settlement Deed in favour of the defendant. The said Kaliathal @ Kaliammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till her death. After her death, both the plaintiffs and the defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

6. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court namely:-

(i) Whether the defendant is entitled to the suit property as per the settlement deed dated 29.07.2010?

(ii) Whether the suit property is available for partition ?

(iii) To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?

7. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the Defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B31 were marked. Ex.X1 was also marked as Court document. The trial Court decreed the suit for partition. Aggr