Oral partition must be substantiated with evidence; mere allegations without proof do not suffice to alter joint family property status.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This Appeal suit is directed against judgment and decree made in O.S.No.48 of 2012, dated 30.01.2015, on the file of Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for easy reference.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the defendants. After trial, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree. Challenging the same, the defendants 6 and 7 have filed the present appeal.

4. The brief facts of the plaintiff are as follows:

4.1. The plaintiff's father-in-law, Ramasamy, had two wives, viz., Chellammal (also known as Chellayee) and Palaniyammal (also known as Palaniayee). Chellammal passed away in 1921, and Palaniyammal died in 1953. The plaintiff's husband, Natarajan, and one Govindasamy were born to the first wife, Chellammal. In 1981, Natarajan left the plaintiff and their children (Defendants 1 to 3) and settled in Singapore. Govindasamy, the plaintiff’s brother-in-law, was deaf and mute, and he passed away in 1960, leaving behind his wife (the fourth defendant) and his son (the fifth defendant) as his legal heirs.

4.2. Kumarasamy (the sixth defendant) and Kaliyappan were born to Ramasamy by his second wife, Palaniyammal. Kaliyappan died in 1951 at the age of 6. The seventh defendant is the son of the sixth defendant. When the plaintiff’s husband went to Singapore, his brother Govindasamy and the sixth defendant jointly administered the property. The suit schedule property includes items 1 to 31, called as "Veladi Vaiyal," an extent of 5.5 acres adjusant to the”Viladi Vaiyal” and was in joint possession. Except for the last item of the suit property, all the properties are self- acquired by Ramasamy from his own income. The last item of the suit property was in the possession of the plaintiff’s husband.

4.3. After Ramasamy’s death, his sons (Kaliyappan, the plaintiff’s husband Natarajan, and Govindasamy) and the sixth defendant were in joint possession of the property. The plaintiff’s husband, Natarajan, the sixth defendant, and the deceased Govindasamy each held 1/3 share in the suit property. After Natarajan’s death, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share of the total 1/12 of the suit property. The fourth defendant, having passed away, is succeeded by the fifth defendant. The sixth defendant, who is currently administering the property, has failed to provide an account of the income derived from the suit property. Furthermore, the sixth defendant is attempting to transfer his share of the property to the seventh defendant, despite having no legal right to do so. Additionally, the sixth defendant has sold portions of the property to defendants 8 to 10, claiming to act as the manager of the same. However, the sixth defendant's claim to have purchased the last item of the property is false.

4.4. Despite repeated requests from the plaintiff for partition and possession, the defendants have refused to cooperate. The plaintiff asserts that, in the 1/3 share of Natarajan, she and defendants 1 to 3 have rights. Therefore, the plaintiff, along with defendants 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, are joint shareholders. The annual income from the suit property is estimated to be Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit seeking partition of her 3/12 share of the pro