JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI R 1 of Civil Procedure Code to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed on 11.01.2016 in O.S.No.2104 of 2014 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

A. The Suit :

Kamakshi Bai, Ambu Bai, Muniyamma Bai, Kuppamma Bai @ Kuchala Kumari, four sisters filed the present suit for partition for partitioning the suit property and allotment of 4/7 shares to them against their brothers D.T.Rajkapoor Sah @ Raghul Sah, D.T.Loku Sah and D.T.Rukma Sah.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Ellu Sah is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He had three sons namely, Thulasi Sah, Gopal Sah and Kuppa Sah. The above said father and three sons started Shellac vending business and out of the income, three properties were purchased which includes the suit property. On 07.03.1964, by a registered partition deed, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Thulasi Sah, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said partition deed, dated 07.03.1964 wrongly describes as if the suit property is an ancestral property. Therefore, the suit property, in the hands of Thulasi Sah is to be treated as his separate property. The said Thulasi Sah died intestate on 30.05.2000 leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs. The above said registered partition deed, which was of the year 1964, was unskillfully drafted whereby it includes the names of the defendants also along with the father of Thulasi Sah as if they are representing a branch. Therefore, the property is the absolute property of Thulasi Sah and after his death, is liable for partition among all the seven legal heirs. The plaintiffs, therefore, called upon the defendants by legal notice, dated 30.10.2013 to effect peaceful partition. However, the defendants did not come forward to partition the property, but, sent a reply notice, dated 30.11.2013 with untenable allegations. Even when the plaintiffs attempted to approach the defendants through panchayatdars, they declined and hence the suit.

C. The Written Statement :

3. The case of the defendants is that the suit property was allotted to the father of Thulasi Sah and the defendants. The suit property was purchased seven decades ago by the grandfather, late Ellu Sah and therefore has the status of ancestral property. Therefore, on the date when the partition was effected, women were not entitled to inherit the ancestral property of the joint family. The present suit is initiated only with a malafide intention of harassing the defendants.

D. The Issues :

4. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of partition and for mesne profits as prayed?

(ii) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled?

E. The Evidence :

5. Thereafter, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A- 1 to A-8 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on the side of the defendants.

F. The Findings of the Trial Court :

6. The Trial Court, thereafter, considered the case of the parties and by a judgment, dated 11.01.2016, found that the property was self-acquired property of Ellu Sah. When it was allotted to Thulasi Sah and the other defendants, it was allotted with a condition to pay the joint family debts and since the defendants were aged 7 years, 4 years and 5 months respectively, they could not have discharged the debt. The Trial Court held that the contention of the defendants that the defendants 1 to 3 were to enjoy the property absolutely cannot be accepted. Merely because in the partition deed, the term "ancestral property" is used, that could by itself will not cloth any right on the defendants. D.W.1 had, in the cross-examination, also admitted that the suit property is the self-acquired property of the Ellu Sah, the grand fath