JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.13641 of 2010 on the file of the XVIII-Additional City Civil Court, at Chennai.

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned XVIII-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 08.01.2013 in O.S. No.13641 of 2010, in and by which the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed, granting declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the 'B' Schedule Property and a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 6/20 shares in 'C' Schedule Property.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the wife of one Panneerselvam and the second and third plaintiffs are his son and daughter. Pannerselvam is the son of one Muthukrishnan through his first wife Pankajam Ammal. After the death of Pankajam Ammal in the year 1952, the said Muthukrishnan married one Kamalammal, and out of the said wedlock they begot two sons, who are the first and second defendants and a daughter, the third defendant. Thereafter, the said Muthukrishnan died on 21.11.1964. Kamalammal also died in the year 1974.

2.1. The property described in 'B' Schedule to the plaint, admeasuring 1260 sq.ft. was purchased by the said Pankajam Ammal, when she was a minor being represented by her husband Muthukrishnan, from and out of the sale consideration provided by her mother. Thereafter, though the family was initially using the property as cattle shed, subsequently, constructions were put up by the said Muthukrishnan and his two brothers. However, ultimately, they released their rights in favour of Panneerselvam by a registered release deed dated 31/10/1960. Since Pankajam Ammal died in the year 1952, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, as per Mitakshara Hindu Law, the Streedhana property of a Hindu Woman devolved on her daughter, and in the absence of any daughter, on the son. As such, Panneerselvam is the absolute owner of 'B' Schedule property. The plaintiffs being his legal heirs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. When they claimed for partition in respect of 'C' Schedule Property, the defendants in their reply are vexatiously seeking partition of the 'B' Schedule property and hence, the plaintiffs pray for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the 'B' Schedule Property.

2.2. The suit 'C' Schedule property, is the adjacent property to the 'B' Schedule property admeasuring 2403 sq.ft. The same was purchased by Muthukrishnan from the Official Receiver, by a registered sale deed dated 05.04.1950. Subsequently the same was blended with the joint family properties and again by a partition between the said Muthukrishnan and his brothers, dated 31.10.1960, it was allotted to the share of Muthukrishnan. Therefore, after the death of Muthukrishnan, and the said Panneerselvam, the first defendant and the second defendant were entitled to 1/4th share each and the 1/4th share of Muthukrishnan devolved on his four children and his surviving wife Kamalammal. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled to 6/20 shares in the 'C' Schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs pray for partition and separate possession of the same.

C. The Written Statement :

3. The defendants admitted the relationships, the dates of marriages of the parties, and the death of the Muthukrishnan, Pankajam Ammal, Kamalammal and Panneerselvam. It is the contention of the defendants that though the 'B' Schedule property was purchased in the name of Pankajam Ammal, after her demise, the said Muthukrishnan was vested with ½ share in the same, and the defendants are entitled to their share in the said ½ share of Muthukrishan, therefore, they paid the Court fee in respect of the same, and sought partition and separate po