The court emphasized the importance of the limitation period for filing partition suits and considered the legal status of ancestral properties in determining the entitlement of shares.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.32 of 2014 dated 07.08.2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Hosur in confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.52 of 2004 dated 20.02.2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Hosur. Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.30 of 2014 dated 07.08.2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Hosur in confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.52 of 2004 dated 20.02.2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Hosur.)

Common Judgement

1. The two appeal arises from out of the decree in O.S.No.52 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Judge, Hosur. Against the decree, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur, pending the appeal, she died and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4. The second defendant had filed A.S.No.30 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur and pending the said appeal, the second defendant had died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4.

2. The Additional District Judge, Hosur by a common judgment and decree dated 07.08.2021 had allowed the appeal A.S.No.30 of 2014 filed by the second defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.32 of 2014.

3. The facts in brief that are necessary for understanding the issue involved in the appeals are herein below narrated and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.52 of 2004 for a partition and separate possession of her 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. It is her case that the properties belonged to her father Rama Krishnappa, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 were entitled to 1/8th share each in the property and defendants 7 to 11 were jointly entitled to 1/8th share. Likewise, defendants 12 to 14 were jointly entitled to 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. After the death of her father, the plaintiff repeatedly requested her share in the family property, but however, the defendants did not pay heed to her request. The defendants were in the habit of sharing some of the rental amounts with reference to some properties to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was under the bonafide belief that she would not be deprived from her right in the property. The defendants however, after the filing of the suit had sold some extents of the suit property to the defendants 15 to 24. The plaintiff would submit that she is permanently residing at Mysore, but however, would visit Hosur quite often and reside at her relative's house.

5. During her last visit, on 10.06.2004, the plaintiff came to learn that the defendants had divided the properties amongst themselves under the registered partition deed, dated 10.12.1980. This deed was entered into between the first defendant-Ammaiammal, R.Narayanan, R.Sreenivasan, and defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7. However, this partition was not made known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter, perused the partition deed and was shocked to learn that no property was allotted to her though she was entitled to 1/8th share in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff on 20.06.2004 had convened a meeting of the family members to demand her share. However, the defendants refused to allot any share. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff has come with the suit for partition.

6. The written statement had been filed by the 2nd defendant, in which, he would contend that the suit was not maintainable either in law or on facts. He would contend that the plaintiff had been given a site as gift by their mother. The plaintiff was very much aware about this partition. The 2nd defendant would submit that the plaintiff has sold away the share allott