Registered partition deeds take precedence over claims of oral partition, limiting the rights of heirs under the amended Hindu Succession Act to those alive or affected at the time of partition.

JUDGMENT :

S. Srimathy, J.

The present appeal suit is filed by the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment and decree, dated 01.11.2019, passed in O.S.No.48 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein and the defendants in the suit are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking in the original suit.

3. The plaintiff had filed the suit for partition to divide the property and allot 1/6^th share to him and pass a preliminary decree and final decree with a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from selling the property.

4. The brief facts are that the suit properties originally belong to one Ayyavu Ambalam who is the grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. The said Ayyavu Ambalam had two sons namely, Somanathan and Salai @ Muthiah. The said Somanathan is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. After the death of grandfather Ayyavu Ambalam, both the sons orally partitioned the properties. The suit property is the ancestral property to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5. There are other properties which were purchased out of the income of the joint family properties. The mother of the plaintiff namely, Panaiyammal died in the year 1991 and the father Somanathan died on 13.12.2004. The 1^st defendant being the eldest male member was giving the share to the plaintiff and other sharers from the income earned through the joint family properties, hence the plaintiff and defendants were jointly enjoying the suit properties. The 1^st defendant requested the other parties to effect partition and it was decided by the joint family members to divide after the Alagarkovil festival. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the 1^st defendant to effect partition but he was evading to do so. The further submission of the plaintiff is that the father felt that the plaintiff is a lucky daughter, hence the father started to conduct a school in Melur Town in Survey No.176/7 in the name of the plaintiff “Sri Meenakshi Basic School”. The school and other properties of the school stood in the name of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff is also having 1/6^th share. The plaintiff issued legal notice, dated 22.06.2012, for effecting partition. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for dividing the suit properties into 6 equal shares.

5. The 1^st defendant has filed a written statement wherein it is stated that the plaintiff is not having any share in the suit properties. Several transactions have taken place in respect of the suit properties even during the lifetime of the father, which were suppressed by the plaintiff. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The oral partition between the said Somanathan and Solai @ Muthiah is denied. There was a registered partition deed, dated 03.03.1969, between them and the properties in the partition deed alone is ancestral properties. The 1^st defendant was assisting his father in maintaining the properties and school and the 1^st defendant had also attested the partition deed. The said Somanathan was initially working as a Teacher in Sri Sundareshwara Vidhayalaya School in Nondikoivlpatti Village for a monthly salary of Rs.36/-. With the joint effort of the 1^st defendant and father Somanathan, the properties were acquired from the correspondent of the school namely one Ramamoorthy, who had expressed difficulty in running the school and he handed over the management of the school to the said Somanathan in the year 1958 and the name was changed as “S