Oral relinquishment of property rights is invalid without a registered instrument, and strict proof of Wills is required for validity.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for partition, the present appeal came to be filed by the unsuccessful second plaintiff.

2. The parties are arrayed as one for ranking by the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiffs’ case is as follows:-

According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are the daughters of one Palanisamy Gounder. The third defendant, one Arukathal, is the mother of the plaintiffs. The fourth and fifth defendants are the brothers of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff’s father Palanisamy Gounder. The second defendant is the purchaser of the suit property. The defendants 6 to 8 are the legal heirs of the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is an ancestral property belonging to their father Palanisamy Gounder and their uncle Nachimuthu gounder. The suit property remains as joint family property. The first defendant sold the undivided share to the second defendant through a sale deed dated 06.08.2003. According to the plaintiffs, it is not binding on the plaintiffs, as the property has not been partitioned. The plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of their father Palanisamy Gounder, sought a partition of 6/50 shares each in the suit property.

4. The first defendant and the fifth defendant filed a memo before the trial Court indicating that they have no objection for partition and also paid Court fee for alloting their shares.

5. However, the fourth defendant filed a written statement admitting that there was no partition in the properties. It is the contention that after the death of his father, the plaintiffs orally relinquished the right in S.Nos.311 and 312, after receiving consideration. That apart, sufficient seers were also given during their marriage.

6. The 7th defendant filed a written statement to the effect that the first defendant has sold the property to the second defendant with a specific boundaries. According to him, there is oral partition between his father and Palanisamy Gounder. The first defendant has left the Will dated 05.12.2011 in favour of the 7th defendant. After his death on 27.06.202, the Will came into effect. Hence, he opposed the suit.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 12/50 shares in the suit property?

(ii) To what other relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to?

8. On the side of the plaintiffs, PW-1 to PW-4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side the defendants, DW-1 to DW-6 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked and on the side of the Court Ex.C1 was marked.

9. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs th have not proved the identity of the property. However, the 7 defendant has proved the Will executed by his father and challenging the said dismissal of the suit, the second plaintiff has filed the present appeal and the first th plaintiff, Deivathal is arrayed as the 7 respondent in the appeal.

10. The main contention of the appellant is that the trial Court misdirected itself and dismissed the suit without properly appreciating the th evidence. Though the 7 defendant pleaded that the Will said to have been executed by his father Palanisamy Gounder, the socalled Will not seen the light of day. Whereas, the fourth defendant has projected the Will said to have been executed by her mother, despite the fact that the Will has also not been established. The Trial Court recorded the finding, as if the Will th projected by the 7 defendant has been proved, despite the fact that the said Will had not been filed before the Court. In any event the trial Court dismissed the suit without properly appreciating the evidence.

11. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants 4 and 7/respondents 2 and 5 herein in the appeal would vehemently contend that the wife of Palanisamygounder Arukathal had executed a Will in respect of the undivided share in favour of her