Clear evidence is required to establish claims of property ownership and partition, particularly in disputes among co-owners.

JUDGMENT :

The Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.50 of 2003 dated 08.10.2003 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankarankoil, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.194 of 2001 dated 23.04.2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. Upon consideration of evidence on record, the First Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred the present second appeal.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule properties are originally owned by Ganapathy Kudumban and Anachi. They have purchased the said property by way of a sale deed dated 11.07.1942 and they partitioned the property orally and enjoyed the same separately. Anachi, by way of oral partition deed, got 1 acre 53 cents. The said Anachi had three daughters, namely, Vadakasi Ammal, Maruthi Ammal and Karuppayee Ammal. After the death of the said Anachi, her three daughters orally partitioned the property and enjoyed separately. Vadakasi Ammal had one daughter by name, Mariammal. Mariammal had one son by name, Durai Raj, who is the first plaintiff and one daughter by name, Muthukani. Maruthi Ammal had three daughters by name, Mariammal, Muthumadathi and Ganapathiammal, who are the defendants. Karuppayee Ammal had two daughters by name, Chinnathai, who is the second plaintiff and Ranjitham. The plaint schedule properties were allotted by way of oral partition to the plaintiffs. Since the defendants disputed the title and interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, they filed the suit for injunction and declaration with regard to the plaint schedule property.

5. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that the suit property has been purchased by Ganapathy Kudumban and Anachi on 11.07.1942 by way of a sale deed dated 11.07.1942. The defendants have not disputed the oral partition between Ganapathy Kudumban and Anachi and they disputed the subsequent alleged partition between the daughters of Anachi Ammal. Since they are jointly enjoyed the property, in the absence of notice to the defendants, the plaintiffs got patta in their name, for that, the defendants objected. Without sending any notice to the defendants and without knowledge to the defendants, the plaintiffs obtained patta and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim right over the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the defendants pleaded to dismiss the suit.

6. On the basis of the above said pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court for consideration:-

1. Is it correct that the first plaintiff is entitled to the plaint 1^st schedule property?

2. Whether the relief of declaration and permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint 1^st schedule property is available to the plaintiffs?

3. Is it correct that the second plaintiff is entitled to the plaint 2^nd schedule property?

4. Whether the relief of declaration and permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint 2^nd