IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the implications of non-joinder of necessary parties and the proper court fee valuation in a suit for partition.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Additional District & Sessions Judge at Ariyalur dated 07.06.2018 in A.S.No.3 of 2013 confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Ariyalur dated 08.12.2009 in O.S.No.123 of 2007.)

1. The plaintiff, in this second appeal, has challenged the judgment and decree of the Additional District & Sessions Judge at Ariyalur dated 07.06.2018 in A.S.No.3 of 2013, confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Ariyalur dated 08.12.2009 in O.S.No.123 of 2007.

2. The defendant in a suit for partition, having suffered concurrent findings before the Courts below is the appellant herein.

3. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the son of Kandasamy Mudaliar who had nine sons and three daughters and out of the said three daughters one of the daughters died. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is an ancestral property belonging to his grand father Palani Mudaliar who had only one son, Kandasamy Mudaliar, that is father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to half share in the suit property and the suit property being ancestral property, his sisters would not be entitled to any share.

5. The defendant is the purchaser of the suit property from the father of the plaintiff. The defendant filed a written statement contending that he is a bonafide purchaser of the entire suit property from the father of the plaintiff who had absolute right to deal with the property and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of partition. The defendant also contended that the suit property is not an ancestral property as alleged by the plaintiff and even otherwise, the defendant has been in absolute physical possession and enjoyment of the entire property and therefore the plaintiff's claim of being in joint possession was also not factually true and consequently he sought for dismissal of the suit. The defendant also raised the plea of non joinder of the sisters of the plaintiff as parties to the suit.

6. The trial Court finding that the property was an ancestral property at the hands of the father of the plaintiff, held that the plaintiff is entitled to one ½ share. The first appellate Court, on appeal by the defendant concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, the defendant has come up by way of filing the present Second Appeal. On 30.11.2018, this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following three questions of law.

'(a) when admittedly the respondent was not born in the year 1948 when his grand father Palani Mudaliar has passed away and the respondent's father Kandasamy Mudaliar had sold the suit property under Exhibit B1 to discharge family debts and payout his medical expenses, whether the Courts below are correct in law in holding that the suit property is coparcenery property in which the respondent is entitled to ½ share?

(b) when the respondent examined as PW1 categorically admitted that he was not born when his grand father Palani Mudaliar died in the year 1948 and even as per the case set up by him, the property was absolutely taken by Kandasamy Mudaliar, are the Courts below correct in law in holding that the respondent is a sharer entitled to ½ share?

(c) when the boundary recital in a document not inter parties cannot be relied upon to uphold title, whether the Courts below are correct in law in placing reliance upon the boundary recital contained Exhibit A7 Sale deed to hold that the suit property is ancestral property?'

8. I have heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.P.V.Law Associates, counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Kavikannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel sub