JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal Order dated 19.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.88/2010 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.)

1. The Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.88/2010 had filed this Revision Petition seeking to set aside the Order passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Ponneri in dismissing the Petition in I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.88/2010, by an Order dated 19.09.2022. The Plaintiffs are mother and sisters of the Defendants. They had filed the Suit for partition.

2. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the averments in the Plaint and the Scheduled property in the Plaint in O.S.No.213/2008. The properties were situated in Verkadu Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District which is described in the Scheduled property under serial Nos.1 to 8 and also in Applavaram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District which are described in Serial Nos.1 to 10 separately and the properties in Old Gummidipoondi Village which are described in Serial Nos.1 to 4 separately. The Suit was filed for partition. In the Plaint itself the Plaintiffs had stated that the properties were ancestral properties. It was acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu and with that the award amount of Land Acquisition, the Suit properties were purchased. The daughters were given due share in the L.A.O.P award. The Plaintiffs are entitled to 3/8th share in the Suit Property. The Defendants 1 to 3 in the Suit tried to knock away the entire amount which was duly resisted by the Plaintiffs. The objection letter of the Plaintiffs dated 19.09.2003 and stop payment order to the Bank was enclosed in the Suit. The Plaintiffs caused legal notice to the departments concerned and the photostat copy enclosed with the Plaint. The proceedings of the DRO regarding the acquisition is also enclosed herewith the Plaint. In order to deprive the Plaintiffs' right over the Suit properties, Elumalai Naicker/the Husband of the first Plaintiff and father of Plaintiffs – 2 and 3/Defendants 1 to 3 and grandfather of Defendants 4 and 5 along with his sons divided the Suit properties through a registered partition deed dated 20.03.2000. The above partition is invalid since the daughters were not included. On the date of partition, the daughters were having share in the Suit properties, especially when the award amount was equally distributed. The Plaint averments stated that the properties are ancestral in nature. Several oral requests to the Defendants ended in vain. The Defendants were not taking care of the mother/first Plaintiff. Therefore, she is residing with the third Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiffs had filed the Suit for partition. The 6th Defendant is also the daughter of the first Plaintiff since she had not joined the other Plaintiffs and she had been impleaded as 6th Defendant.

2.1. It the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Defendants 1 to 3 had filed I.A.No.1/2021 seeking to amend the Plaint by executing the property that were sold by the first Plaintiff to the Plaintiffs 2 and 3. Since the partition had been sought, the properties in the family of the Plaintiffs and Defendants had to be included in the Scheduled properties. The Defendants 1 to 3 in the written statement had already stated that the Suit is not maintainable as the Suit properties were not ancestral properties. It was a self acquired property of Elumalai Naicker. D-4 and D-5 are widow and son of the deceased Govindaraj predeceased son of the first Plaintiff.

2.2. In the written statement, the Petitioners as Defendants had disputed the claim of the Plaintiffs. Also, in the written statement, Defendants 1 to 3 had stated that the gift settlement deed executed by the first Plaintiff in favour of the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 which were registered as Document No.1800/2000 dated 18.09.2000.