A married female heir does not lose the right to claim partition in ancestral property, but can be barred from claiming over property sold with her knowledge due to limitation.

JUDGMENT :

(G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The suit for partition was filed by the sister and her children against her brother, another sister, the brother’s son, and a purchaser who had bought part of the property from the brother and his son.

2. According to the 1^st plaintiff, her father Narasimha Naidu died in the year 1969, leaving behind two sons and two daughters. One of his sons, Sampath, passed away in 1974. Narasimha Naidu had ancestral property at the time of his death, which, according to the 1^st plaintiff, is to be inherited equally by the 1^st plaintiff, the 1^st defendant, and the 4^th defendant.

3. The 1^st defendant, being the elder son in the family, allegedly took advantage of his position and changed the patta to his name, enjoying the property exclusively. However, the suit property was jointly enjoyed by the 1^st plaintiff, 1^st defendant, and 4^th defendant without any division by metes and bounds. Due to recent misunderstandings regarding joint enjoyment of the property, the 1^st plaintiff sought partition and claimed her 1/3^rd share. Her demand, made on 11.03.2018, was refused by the 1^st defendant. A panchayat was convened for an amicable partition, but it failed due to the antagonistic attitude of the 1^st defendant.

4. On Enquiry at the Sub-Registrar's Office in Karimangalam, the 1^st plaintiff came to know that the 1^st defendant had sold a portion of the suit property, specifically 33 cents in S.No. 60/1 and 2.77 cents in S.No. 60/3, to the 3^rd defendant for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,54,000/- A registered sale deed was executed on 30.11.2005. This sale was made without any right, as the property was joint family property held in common and not partitioned. The sale was also made without the knowledge or consent of the 1^st plaintiff and 4^th defendants. The plaintiffs contend that the sale is illegal and has no binding effect on the co- owners. Therefore, the sale deed ought to be declared null and void.

5. Being the legal heirs of Narasimha Naidu and the property being ancestral in nature, on his demise, his children, namely the 1^st plaintiff, 1^st defendant, and 4^th defendant, became entitled to 1/3^rd share each in the suit property. The suit was contested by the 1^st defendant, who filed a written statement, which was adopted by his son, the 2^nd defendant, and by the 4^th defendant, who is the second sister. In the written statement, the defendants denied the averments made in the plaint, stating that they are false and unsustainable.

6. It was further stated that Item Nos.1 and 2 refer to the same property, which originally belonged to Narasimha Naidu, S/o Govindasamy, who did not acquire any property independently during his lifetime. He had no occupation other than agriculture. He had sold a portion of the property inherited from his father Govindasamy and also incurred debts, obtaining loans from persons such as Nallappan, Ramachandran, Gopal, and Duraisami, executing promissory notes to meet agricultural and family expenses.

7. Before repaying these debts, Narasimha Naidu unfortunately died in a motor accident. His wife, Nagarathinammal, also passed away in the same year (1969), leaving behind their four minor children: the 1^st defendant (aged 14 years), the 1^st plaintiff (aged 13 years), their deceased brother Sampath (aged 7 years), and the 4^th defendant Jothi (an infant aged 1½ years).

8. Following the deaths of their par