The court ruled that the failure to join necessary parties and the lack of substantial evidence from key witnesses undermined the plaintiff's claims, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is the first defendant. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition by claiming half share in the suit properties. The trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed and passed a preliminary decree for half share in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. The first appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the first defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

2. The facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint in brief:-

The suit properties were originally belonged to one Chinthambi Udaiyar who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. Chinthambi Udaiyar had two daughters and no sons. The third defendant is one of the daughter of Chinthambi Udaiyar and the other daughter's name is Valliammai. Chinthambi Udaiyar had settled the suit property in favour of third defendant and Valliammai through a settlement dated 20.09.1968 and handed over possession. At that time Valliammai was a minor and hence her mother Agilandammal had taken possession as her guardian and she had handed over the properties to Valliammai after she attained majority. Valliammai married the plaintiff. The suit properties were kept as common by the third defendant and Valliammai.

2.1 In the year 1979 Valliammai had suffered some Gynecological issues. By making use of the above situation the third defendant and her mother Agilandammal along with the third defendant and her husband Thangavelu convinced her to mortgage her share of the property by stating that she would require money for her treatment. Instead of getting the mortgage deed they had managed to get a settlement deed dated 26.03.1979 by cheating her. The above settlement deed was in favour of the third respondent's son by name Sekar represented by his grandmother Agilandammal. On 24.04.1979 Valliammai sent a legal notice stating that the settlement deed dated 26.03.1979 is a fraudulent one. On receiving that Agilandammal sent a reply on 02.05.1979 stating that she was not aware of any settlement deed and that could have been a created one. Valliammai continued to be in possession of her share as usual.

2.2. On 05.11.1979 Valliammai executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and from then onwards the plaintiff is in enjoyment of the property by paying the property tax. In view of the plaintiff's enjoyment of the suit property, patta has also been granted in his favour. The third defendant had sold her half share in respect of Items 3 to 7 in favour of the second defendant. The third defendant and her son Sekar had tried to sell the whole of the properties in Items 10 and 11 in favour of the second defendant. On coming to know the above attempt, the plaintiff had sent a legal notice on 25.02.2000 to the defendants 3 and 4. On receiving the said notice, the defendants 3 and 4 sent a reply notice on 25.01.2022 with false allegations. So the whole of the suit properties in Items 10 and 11 have been sold to the defendants 3 and 4. The defendants 3 and 4 did not have any right to sell Items 10 and 11 in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant has got only half share in Items 10 and 11.

3. The written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3 in brief:

The fact that the father of the third defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 20.09.1968 in her favour and her sister Valliammai is correct. It is false to state that the settlement deed in favour of the third defendant's son the fourth defendant was obtained by fraud on 26.03.1979. The plaintiff had deserted Valliammai and he was having extra-marital relationship with the other women. Hence, Valliammai was under the custody of her sister, the third defendant. Only out of love and affection, Valliammai had executed the settlement deed in favour of the fourth defendant on 26.03.1979. From then onwards Items 3 to 7 and 10 and 11 were enjoyed by the third defendant's family. The plaintiff had never been in individual or joint enjoyment