A partition suit cannot proceed if necessary parties are not joined, and mere passage of time does not negate the limitation period for filing such claims.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The appeal suit is against the dismissal of the partition suit filed by one of the daughter of Kanniappa Gramini in respect of the property which devolved on him in the partition between him and his brothers in the year1957.

2. A larger extent of land measuring 7800 sq.ft. was purchased by one Vanchi Gramini on 13.07.1936 and during his life time, he sold a portion of it measuring 1950 sq.ft to one Athilakshmi and left the balance land for his three sons to inherit it. On his death, his three sons namely Kanniappa Gramini, Kaliappa Gramini and Arumuga Gramini inherited it and got divided under a partition deed dated 22.11.1957. In the said partition, 1950 sq.ft of land was allotted to Kanniappa Gramini and he took possession of the land and constructed a house.

3. Kanniappa Gramini and his wife Parvathiammal had one son and 4 daughters. The suit for partition filed by Dhakchayani, daughter of Kanniappa Gramini. The first appellant Gunasundari, the first respondent Dhakchayani, Rani (who is the mother of appellants 2 to 4), and Seethalakshmi (the 6^th respondent) are the four daughters of Kanniappa Gramini. Ramalingam is the only son of Kanniappa Gramini. He died leaving behind his wife (the 2^nd respondent) and son and two daughters, who are the respondents 3 to 5.

4. The suit by Dhakchayani seeking 1/5 share in the suit property got dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground of limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties. The Trial Court has found that Kanniappa Gramini, the father of the plaintiff had two wives. The first wife children by name Chittibabu and Kamal are not made parties in the suit for partition. The said Kanniappa Gramini died in the year 1995 and his wife Parvathi ammal died in the year 1996. The plaintiff got married 59 years ago and admits that she was not in joint possession of the property. Hence, suit for partition filed 23 years after the death of her father held as barred by limitation.

5. The plaintiff in the suit Dhakchayani had not filed any appeal against the dismissal of her suit for partition. Her sister Gunasundari, who as the 6^th defendant in the suit is before this Court through this appeal contending that the limitation prescribed under Article 110 of the LIMITATION ACT , will not apply to the facts of the case. The Trial Court miserable failed to consider the Central Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on 09.09.2005. The Court carried away by the fact that all the daughters of Kanniappa Gramini got married prior to 1990, when the State Amendment came into force, so they are not entitled for share in the property. The dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma case totally overlooked by the Trial Court. The whereabouts of other two legal heirs of Kanniappa Gramini not heard for several years. While so, non impleading them cannot be fatal for the other legal heirs to get share in the property of their father, who died intestate leaving behind the suit property, which he got from his father.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, who are the legal heirs of Ramalingam submitted that, the larger extent of land left by Vanchi Gramini on his death devolved on his 4 sons. By way of partition, in the year 1957, Kanniappa Gramini was put in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 1950 sq.ft of land. It has become his absolute property after the partition. The vacant land given to him was improved by putting up construction on it from his income. Ramalingam, who is the husband of the second respondent and father of the respondents 3 to 5, born prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. Hence, his right in the grand father