Admissions made in prior litigation are binding and can prevent a party from altering their claims in subsequent claims, reinforcing the principle of estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree passed in A.S.No.12 of 2012, on the file of the Sub Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District, dated 15.04.2016 in confirming the judgement and decree dated 31.01.2012 made in O.S. No. 577 of 1995, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant and he has filed the suit for partition of 1/4th share in the suit property and the suit has been dismissed. The Appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed and hence he has filed this second appeal.

3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint of the 1st plaintiff runs as under:

The deceased 2nd plaintiff is the mother of the 1st plaintiff. The suit property originally belonged to one Oratakai Gounder, who is the paternal grandfather of the 1st plaintiff and he died intestate by leaving his four sons. One of the sons of the deceased Oratakai Gounder is the plaintiff's father, Govinda Gounder. Hence the plaintiff's father has got 1/4 share in the suit property, and he was in enjoyment of the same along with his other three brothers. One of the brothers by name Muruga Gounder also died intestate by leaving the defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff's father also died intestate, leaving the plaintiff and his mother as his legal heirs. The 4th and 5th defendants are the legal heirs of the yet another son by name Mahadevan Gounder. The 6th and 8th defendants are the legal heirs of the 4th son of the Oratakai Gounder by name Appayee Gounder. As the defendants are not amenable to partition the plaintiff's 1/4th share, he has filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction.

4. The defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff by making the following avernments in their statements:

The suit properties are not the properties that belonged to the 1st plaintiff's paternal grandfather, Oratakai Gounder. The plaintiffs are the 3rd parties to the suit properties, and hence they do not have 1/4th share in the suit as claimed. The suit property and other properties are 'tharkaths' lands, and Muruga Gounder was in possession of the same by encroaching it along with the other properties. As he was in enjoyment for more than 60 years, he has got a patta from the government in his name. Muruga Gounder had died by leaving, defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an oral partition subsequent to the death of their father, Muruga Gounder. In the said oral partition developed in the suit property comprising 4 acres and 27 cents has been partitioned and an extent of 1 acre and 98 cents have been allotted to defendants 2 and 3. The rest of the properties have been allotted to the 1st defendant. As the plaintiff did not have any right over the suit property, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the same. In fact, in the earlier suits filed by the plaintiffs in OS.Nos.164/1993 and 157/1993 also, the plaintiffs admitted the possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant over 1 acre and 98 cents in the suit property. The suit is bad for no joinder of necessary parities. The plaintiff has got a sister by name Rajammal and she has not been impleaded as a party, though she is a necessary party. As the 1st defendant had never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed. The written statement of the 1st defendant is adopted by the defendants 2 and 3 by denying the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim the relief of partition.

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one witness has been examined as DW.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

6. After the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit. The First Appeal filed by the plaintiff also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed