The court reinforced that a claim for partition, while a continuing right, can be barred by limitations if not promptly asserted after repudiation of rights by co-owners.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The plaintiffs in a suit for partition aggrieved by dismissal of the suit are the appellants.

2. PLEADINGS:-

(a) Plaint in brief:

The suit properties belonged to late Venkatasamy. His three sons Thulasiraman, Subramani and Raji were in joint enjoyment and possession of the suit properties along with late Venkatasamy. The said Venkatasamy, died in 1995 and his wife, Kuppammal, the mother of the plaintiffs died in the year 2018. The suit items 1 to 14, are joint family properties. The suit items 15 and 16 were purchased in the names of Thulasiraman and Subramani respectively. However, the purchases were made from and out of joint family funds. The defendants are legal representatives of Thulasiraman. Item 17 of the suit property is a house put up by the three brothers, during the lifetime of their parents and the said house site is undivided. Items 18 and 19 are also house sites which are lying vacant. The second plaintiff filed a suit against his two brothers viz., Thulasiraman and Subramani in O.S. No.84 of 2000, before the Sub Court, Thiruvallur. The said suit was dismissed for default. In the said suit, certain items of properties were omitted and proper and necessary parties were also not added. In order to have an effective partition, the plaintiffs demanded for partition by causing a lawyer's notice on 11.02.2020. Despite receipt of the said notice, the defendants did not come forward to comply with the demand for partition. Hence, the suit.

(b) Written Statement filed by the 2nd defendant and adopted by the other defendants in brief:

The second defendant has filed written statement which was adopted by the other defendants. The plaintiffs have suppressed material facts. They are not entitled to any relief, much less the relief of partition. The self serving claims that the father Venkatasamy was in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit items along with his sons is stoutly denied. The allegation that items 15 and 16 were purchased in the names of Thulasiraman and Subramani, from and out of joint family funds is also stoutly denied. The claim that three brothers put up separate house construction and that the parties are in joint possession of Item No.17 is also denied. The claim that items 18 and 19 are vacant sites available for partition is also denied. The suit filed in O.S. No.84 of 2000 by the second plaintiff was dismissed for default. The second plaintiff had issued a notice on 03.04.2000, without even mentioning any particulars with regard to death of Venkatasamy. The properties available for partition were already partitioned in the year 1985 and the parties have been in separate possession of their respective allotted shares for 35 years and the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any further share in the suit properties. Thulasiraman, under whom the defendants claimed, had filed a written statement in O.S. No.84 of 2000, setting out how the plaintiffs have dis-entitled to any relief or claim for partition. The said written statement was filed on 05.12.2003 and even thereafter, for 17 long years, there has been no claim for partition and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have also deliberately omitted the properties available in Survey. No.666, besides other properties and therefore, for partial partition as well, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The present litigation is a second round indulged in by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have suppressed the reply notice dated 23.03.2020 issued by the defendants. Valuation of the buildings is also improper. Hence, the defendants pray for dismissal of the suit.

(c) Issues:

Based on the pleadings available before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has framed the f