The court upheld the validity of the partition deed, ruling the plaintiffs' belated challenge was barred by limitation and emphasizing that prior acceptance of the deed by their father precluded the claim of unfairness.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The plaintiffs, aggrieved by dismissal of O.S. No.231 of 2019, on the file of the 1^st Additional District Court, Namakkal, are the appellants.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Kalyanaraman, for Ms.G.Ramya, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. PLEADINGS:-

(a) Plaint in brief:-

The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers and the third plaintiff is their mother. The father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the husband of the third plaintiff, late Sivalingam and the first defendant have entered into a partition on 15.02.1993. The said partition deed was never acted upon. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 were minors on the date of execution of the said partition deed. They are not bound by the said partition deed, which has come to their knowledge only now. The said partition deed cannot infringe upon the rights of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. On the date of the partition deed, both the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were already born and they were proper and necessary parties to the partition deed. Their father Sivalingam, was educated and he took up employment and was not therefore, having the time to look into the agricultural operations. Taking advantage of the same, the first defendant has misled the said Sivalingam into executing the partition deed by taking fertile lands into his shares and allotting dry lands to the said Sivalingam. Sivalingam was under the impression that his elder brother, the first defendant would not cheat him and believed him blindly and signed the partition deed without even reading its contents. Therefore, he never questioned the partition deed during his lifetime. The third plaintiff is a retired Government Servant and when the plaintiffs attempted to cultivate the lands, the defendants have resisted the same, citing the registered partition deed. The defendants have also refused to release water for irrigating purposes from the Well. The Panchayat held to settle the disputes, where also the defendants refused to come forward for any amicable settlement. The plaintiffs therefore issued a lawyer’s notice on 20.12.2018 and thereafter, since there was no response from the defendants, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit challenging the partition deed, dated 15.02.1993 and consequently, seek partition and separate possession.

(b) Written Statement in brief:-

The plaintiffs have no right in the suit property. It is the burden of the plaintiffs to establish that the properties are the ancestral properties and hence, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are coparceners by birth. The father and husband of the plaintiffs is not an illiterate person. He is well educated and was also employed. The averments that the said Sivalingam believed the first defendant and blindly signed the document is stoutly denied. The said Sivalingam was fully aware of the contents of the partition deed and he executed it only after understanding the implications of the division. After the said partition, the said Sivalingam never demanded for re-partition as claimed by the plaintiffs. There was no Panchayat as claimed by the plaintiffs. In fact, after the partition, Sivalingam had even leased out the lands which were allotted to his share to various persons and therefore, the partition deed was acted upon and it is false to contend that the partition was never acted upon. The division was effected taking into consideration the lay of the properties as well as their fertility alone and the partition was in a fair and equitable manner. The plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge the partition deed belated