JUDGMENT :

The present Appeal Suit has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2018 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in OS No.3209 of 2016.

2. The appellant is the fourth defendant, the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 3 to 6 are the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the suit.

3. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition.

4. The avements in the plaint reveals that the suit property originally belonged to the first plaintiff, who purchased the same under the Sale Deed dated 06.12.1973 bearing document No.3560 of 1973 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office at Saidapet.

5. The first plaintiff settled the site of the suit property in favour of her husband Mr.S.Gajapathi under Settlement Deed dated 26.03.1980 bearing document No.866 of 1980 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar II at Saidapet. Pursuant to the Settlement, the husband of the first plaintiff S.Gajapathi took possession of the site of the suit property constructed a house and enjoying the same.

6. There was an allegation of encroachment against the husband of the first plaintiff and a suit was filed in OS No.1037 of 1982 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff Court at Poonamallee against Mr.S.Gajapathi, the husband of the first plaintiff. The suit was dismissed and he filed an Appeal Suit in AS No.25 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee, which was also dismissed after contest. Thereafter, the said Mr.S.Gajapathi, husband of the first plaintiff purchased the suit property from Mr.K.Sankaranarayanan through the Sale Deed dated 06.09.1989 bearing document No.1414 of 1989. The said Mr.S.Gajapathi subsequently died intestate leaving behind him, his wife, Tmt.G.Banumathi, first plaintiff and his two sons namely Mr.G.Rosaiah, the second plaintiff and Mr.G.Balaram, the fifth defendant and four of his daughters namely, Tmt.Saraswathi, first defendant, Tmt.Pushpa, the second defendant, Tmt.Sumathi, third defendant and Tmt.Revathi, fourth defendant as his legal heirs, who all are entitled to succeed in the suit property.

7. The plaintiffs state that due to the death of Mr.S.Gajapathi, they became entitled to 1/7th share in the suit schedule property and similarly all defendants are also entitled to get 1/7th share each in the suit schedule property. Since there was no amicable partition between the parties, the suit was instituted by the wife of Mr.S.Gajapathi, the first plaintiff and her son G.Rosaiah.

8. The defendants 3 and 5 filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The relationship between the parties are not disputed. The defendants have stated that they were ready for partition and they have not raised any objection and not evaded to concur with the plaintiffs for partition or for sale of the suit schedule property for dividing the sale proceeds. The defendants have stated that they have received the legal notice sent by the plaintiffs on 06.04.2011 as referred in the plaint.

9. The fourth defendant has stated in the written statement that her deceased father late Mr.S.Gajapathi executed a Will in favour of all the children except the first plaintiff/mother. Therefore, the fourth defendant in the suit objected for 1/7th share to the first plaintiff, who is the mother of the second plaintiff and the defendants.

10. The plaintiffs filed further reply statement denying the allegations of the fourth defendant in the written statement.

11. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/7th share in the suit properties ?

(2) To what relief ?

12. With reference to the entitlement of the plaintiffs to get 1/7th share in the suit property, the Trial Curt made a finding that the suit property originally belonged to the husband of the first plaintiff Mr.S.Gajapathi and the said Mr.S.Gajapathi died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs.

13. The r