Failure to challenge a settlement deed within the limitation period extinguishes rights to claim co-ownership, and prior consent can estop parties from succeeding in partition claims.

JUDGMENT :

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

1. A.S.No.943 of 2019 and A.S.No.126 of 2023 have been filed against the Decree and Judgment dated 17.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.6042 of 2015, on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by the Defendant & Plaintiff respectively.

2. S.A.No.37 of 2018 has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.227 of 2016.

3 .C.M.P.No.647 of 2018 has been filed to grant interim stay of operation of the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2017 passed in A.S.No.227 of 2016, on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, pending disposal of the Second Appeal.

4. C.M.P.No.27155 of 2019 has been filed to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the preliminary Decree dated 17.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.6042 of 2015, on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, pending disposal of A.S.No.943 of 2019

5. C.M.P.No.5074 of 2023 has been filed to grant an order of Ad.interim injunction restraining the Respondent and his agents, from alienating or encumbering or in any manner dealing with the Suit property, namely the property consisting of land measuring 3,760 sq. ft. and the building thereon at Plot No.234, 39^th Street, 8^th Sector, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600078, comprised in Survey No.262/2B and 262/3 (part), Kodambakkam Pudur Part II, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai, more fully described in the schedule, pending disposal of A.S.No.126 of2023.

6. The Appellant and Respondent in all the cases are Brother (O.P.Sivakumar) and Sister (O.P.Bhaanumathee). This is the fourth round of litigation between the parties.

7......

(a) In respect of A.S.No.943 of 2019, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed Suit for partition claiming ½ share in the suit property. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Suit for partition for separate possession of the suit property and for rendition of the accounts.

(b) The suit property is located in survey No.262/2B and 262/3(part) Kodambakkam Pudur part II, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai consisting of land measuring 3760 sq. ft., and the building thereon at Plot No.234, 39^th Street, 8^th Sector, K.K.Nagar, Chennai. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property.

(c) One O.D.Premraj was working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. His wife was one Chellam. She was working as teacher in a Corporation School at Chennai. The suit property was originally belonged to Tamil Nadu Housing Board. O.D.Premraj was allotted the land measuring 3760 sq. ft, through an allotment order Lr.No.GI.2/249/70. The certified copy of allotment order was marked as Ex.A1. Subsequently on 24.12.1971 a lease cum sale agreement was entered into between Tamil Nadu Housing Board and O.D.Premraj in respect of the said land. The certified copy of lease cum sale agreement dated 24.12.1971 has been marked as Ex.A2. The said O.D.Premraj had paid the full tentative cost of Rs.10,497/- for plot No.234. Therefore the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had issued a certificate to that effect in favour of O.D.Premraj. The certified copy of the certificate was marked as Ex.A3. In Ex.A3 certificate itself the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has stated that the possession of the plot was handed over to O.D.Premraj on 07.02.1972 and title will be transferred to him on completion of five years from the date of allotment or completion of building on the plot whichever is later.

(d) Upon getting the certificate, O.D.Premraj applied for planning permit for construction of hous