The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 65 of the Limitation Act,1963, to determine the maintainability of a suit for partition based on proprietary title and the significance of documentary evidence in establishing ownership and possession.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.7136 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, dated 18.12.2009.)

1. Plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant herein. He has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit viz., O.S.No.7136 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai.

2. Suit was one for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and allotment of 1/4 share to the plaintiff with possession.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property was allotted by Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the name of first respondent/defendant and his brothers on 08.04.1974; he and respondents/defendants are brothers and sisters; Tamil Nadu Housing Board executed a sale deed in favour of ''Susai Arul and Brothers'', which was registered as Document No.1133/91, dated 20.04.1991, and the entire sale consideration of Rs.11,610/- was paid by the appellant and the respondents and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same; while so, the first respondent, without the consent and knowledge of the appellant and other respondents, mortgaged the suit property, by borrowing a sum of Rs.57,000/- from Chennai Bharathi Co-operative Building Society Ltd. and repaid the entire sum with interest to the said Society; the first respondent started dealing with the property as he likes without the knowledge and consent of the other co-sharers and, therefore, the appellant demanded the respondents to partition the suit property and allot him 1/4 share therein, but the first respondent has evaded and failed to comply with the demand of the appellant; the suit property was purchased out of the money contributed by all the parties in the suit; therefore, the appellant and the respondents are equally entitled to the property, each entitled to 1/4 share; and since the respondents failed to partition the suit property and allot 1/4 share therein in spite of repeated demands, the appellant was compelled to file the suit.

4. The case of the first respondent/defendant was that the application for allotment of plot was made by him alone on 08.07.1973; in the application, the names of the appellant and the other respondents are not mentioned; on 04.06.1974, there was a partition between A.Irudhayam and his three sons, namely, Susai Arul, Joseph Raj and Minor Sesu Maichael, represented by his mother Tmt.Lourdhu Mary; in the partition, Tmt.Lourdhu Mary was allotted property and cash worth Rs.26,625/-; the third respondent was allotted property and cash worth Rs.14,000/-; for the marriage of the first and the second defendant, Rs.5,000/- each was allotted; there will be no future continuation with regard to the properties as well as business between the family members; ever since the date of partition, all the parties are living separately; the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed by the first respondent to Tamil Nadu Housing Board after paying the amount by the first respondent alone; no contribution was made by the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3; Tamil Nadu Housing Board issued Transfer Certificate in the name of the first respondent on 14.08.1974 in respect of the suit property; therefore, the suit schedule property has become the absolute property of the first respondent; Chennai Corporation levied the property tax to the suit property in the name of the first respondent on 26.10.1984 and this respondent has been paying property tax till-date; Tamil Nadu Housing Board executed a registered sale deed in the name of this respondent on 02.05.1994; this respondent paid Rs.57,000/- to Bharathi Co-operative Building Society Ltd., Chennai, on 04.12.1998 and obtained receipt in his name for the loan repayment in respect of the suit property; this respondent also obtained a sanction plan from the statutory authority on 24.04