The plaintiffs cannot claim partition in ancestral property during their father's lifetime when the property is determined to be self-acquired rather than joint family property.

JUDGMENT :

G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The Appeal Suit against the dismissal of the suit for partition and separate possession.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit for partition and separate possession. They are son and daughter of Somasundaram S/o.Viswanathan. The suit schedule consists of two items of property. The 1^st item is the property purchased by K.P.M.Kuppusamy Chettiar on 21.07.1942. The 2^nd item is the property which Kuppusamy Chettiar during his lifetime, settled in favour of his wife Krishnaveni and Son Viswanathan vide document dated 19.09.1949. K.P.M.Kuppusamy Chettiar died intestate, leaving his widow Krishnaveni, his son Viswanathan and two daughters, Indirani and Ganga.

3. Krishnaveni Ammal died intestate on 27/04/1975. Viswanathan died intestate on 01.11.2003, leaving behind his widow Malliga and four children namely, Somasundaram, Loganathan, Jamuna and Suguna Rani (defendants 1 to 4). Malliga W/o.Viswanathan died intestate on 08.08.2014.

4. The plaintiffs are the daughter and son of Somasundaram (1^st defendant). Suit for partition claiming 2/36 share in the 1^st item property, which was left intestate by Kuppusamy Chettiar. They claim 2/12 share in the second item property, which Viswanathan got from his father Kuppursamy Chettiar through the settlement deed of the year 1949.

5. The plaintiffs' case is that, the two items of properties are the property of K.P.M.Kuppusamy Chettiar, who is their great grandfather. It is their ancestral property. While so, even their father Somasundaram (first defendant) cannot alienate the minors share in the coparcenary property. While so, taking advantage of the fact that, Somasundaram is a drunkard and addict to alcohol, Somasundaram was chased out from the joint family house in the year 2004. Subsequently, the defendants 1 to 4 alienated the suit properties to defendants 5 to 13. The 14^th defendant had purchased the property from defendants 5 to 13. These transactions, according to the plaintiffs, will not bind them in so far as their share in the suit property which is an ancestral property held jointly by all the coparceners.

6. The defendants 1 to 4 remained absent. The other defendants contested the suit by filing written statements. According to the 5^th defendant (Indirani D/o.Kuppusamy Chettiar), the suit is ill-conceived and not maintainable. The plaintiffs claim share in the coparcenary property through their father Somasundaram, who is alive and arrayed as first defendant in the suit. Further, the suit property is not a property of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It neither carry the character of coparcenary property, nor the plaintiffs fall within the meaning of coparceners. Neither the mother of the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. Hence, the alienation of the property by the defendants 5 to 13 cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs.

7. In the written statements of 13^th, 15^th and 17^th defendants, filed separately, the locus standi of the plaintiffs seeking partition of the property when their father is alive has been questioned. It is contended that, the defendants 1 to 4 have no right in the suit property that was sold by the defendants 5 to 13 in favour of 14^th defendant. After the demise of Kuppusamy Chettiar, it is incorrect to say, his son Viswanathan became the Kartha of the family. The plaintiffs have no right in the second schedule property, much less 2/12 share. In fact, on 03.10.2006, the wife and children of Viswanathan sold out a part of the vacant land measuring 895 sq.ft in S.No:68/1 at Kattukupam Village. Therefore, the