Ancestral property is defined by long-term family possession, and joint patta establishes ownership, regardless of individual assignments.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants 1 and 2 herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2014, on the file of Principal District cum Sessions Court at Ariyalur filed by 1^st respondent/plaintiff claiming partition of his half share in the suit property. On hearing both sides, the trial court granted the relief as prayed for. Now, challenging the said findings, they have preferred this Appeal Suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Before the trial court, the suit was originally filed by plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 4. The 2^nd defendant is his brother and 3^rd and 4^th defendants are the successors of second item of suit property. The plaintiff contended that the suit property is an ancestral property and the 2^nd item situated on the north to south of ancestral property was enjoyed by their family for several decades treating it as joint family properties. After the demise of his father, plaintiff is having half share and his brother, 2^nd defendant is having half share in the property. But, the 2^nd defendant managed to get a patta in favour of his wife in respect of second item of suit property. Based on that, he has sold the property to defendants 3 and 4 on 23.12.2013, but the said sale would not bind on him. Hence, he come forward with the present suit claiming partition.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 have contested the suit. The 3^rd and 4^th defendants remained exparte. On hearing both sides, considering the evidence on record, the trial judge found that the suit properties are ancestral in nature, thereby the plaintiff entitled to half share as prayed for. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Challenging the said findings, now the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this Appeal Suit.

5. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The plaintiff and 2^nd defendant are brothers and sons of one Velan is an admitted fact. The 1^st defendant is the wife of 2^nd defendant. The suit properties/item Nos.1 and 2 as described in the plaint schedule situated on the north to south of ancestral land belongs to plaintiff's family and his father was in possession and enjoyment of suit properties along with his ancestral property situated in the middle and as per physical features on ground, they could not enjoy their patta lands without the suit property. The suit property all along treated as joint family properties along with ancestral property. At the instance of 2^nd defendant, he managed to get an assignment in favour of his wife/1^st defendant in respect of second item of suit property and on coming to know about the same, he raised objections. Thereafter, a joint patta was issued on 31.05.1989 by including his name in respect of both items of suit property. Immediately, the 1^st defendant herein filed a suit against this plaintiff in O.S.No.276 of 1989 claiming that the suit property assigned to her and enjoyed the same absolutely and prayed for permanent injunction against this plaintiff and other consequential reliefs. In that suit, this plaintiff filed a written statement stating that Yasodhai/1^st defendant has no absolute right and claim over the suit properties as it is an ancestral property. Thereafter, the said suit was allowed to dismiss for default and she took steps to restore the suit in I.A.No. 424 of 1993 with an application for condonation of delay of 942 days and the same was also dismissed. Against which, Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.799 of 1997 was filed and the same was also dismissed. Thus, the alleged assignment claimed by the 1^st defendant is not true and valid one. In fact, plaintiff's father was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit properties continuously for more than 16 years. After his demise, the plaintiff and his brother Ponnan, each entitled for half share in the suit properties and they enjoyed the same by raising R.S. Pathi trees in the suit properties. But, with an ulterior motive, 2^nd defendant obtained assignment in the name of his wife and als