A party is estopped from making claims contrary to prior admissions in legal notices, and a partition deed signed by the plaintiff is binding, rendering any claims of joint ownership barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The 5^th defendant in O.S.No.94 of 2015, aggrieved by the decree for partition, is the appellant.

2.Pleadings:

The plaint in brief:

(a) The suit properties belong to one Anuma Gounder. Anuma Gounder was blessed with three sons, namely Rajappan, Manickam and Ramu Gounder. After the demise of Anuma Gounder and his wife, the daughter and one son, Rajappan, along with the remaining two sons, Manickam and Ramu Gounder have jointly enjoyed the properties. Items 2, 3 and 4 were allotted to share of the deceased Rajappan in an oral partition, even during the lifetime of Anuma Gounder. Item 1 was the subject matter of O.S.No.93 of 2001 and after disposal of the said suit, the said item of the property was divided into three equal shares amongst the three sons of Anuma Gounder. An appeal was preferred in A.S.No.94 of 2004, challenging the decree in O.S.No.93 of 2001 and the same was dismissed. The said Rajappan and his two brothers divided the properties for convenient enjoyment and under such division, Item 1 was enjoyed by Rajappan.

(b) Even during the lifetime of Rajappan, the plaintiff, as well as Kannammal and the 2^nd defendant, the daughter of the deceased Rajappan, who was then alive, jointly enjoyed the property along with him. As Rajappan was maintaining the property, the plaintiff gave 1/3rd share to Rajappan. Rajappan wanted to get a loan for upliftment of the properties and he took defendants 1 and 2 to the Sub-Registrar’s Office and obtained their signatures in some stamp papers. The plaintiff, as well as the 2^nd defendant and their mother were under the impression that they were executing the document only for the purposes of obtaining loan. Kannammal is the wife of the deceased Rajappan and Muthammal and Makeswari were born to her. Rajappan had an illegal relationship with one Periapappa and through the said Periapappa, Kamala and Palaniappan were born and they are illegitimate children and they do not have any right in the property which belongs to the plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant alone.

(c) The plaintiff approached the 1^st defendant and requested an amicable partition.The 1^st defendant assured the plaintiff that since O.S.No.93 of 2001 was pending, the plaintiff’s share would be given after passing of the final decree in O.S.No.93 of 2001. The 4^th defendant claimed that Rajappan had executed a gift deed in favour of the 5^th defendant. The plaintiff applied for Encumbrance Certificate and came to know of a settlement deed executed in Doc.No.1569 of 2007, which is legally not enforceable, as Rajappan has no right to create the document as he is only a coparcener and not the absolute owner. The suit properties are ancestral properties and the plaintiff, her father and the 2^nd defendant were enjoying the same jointly. The plaintiff’s signature in the partition deed in Doc.No.1482 of 2009 dated 22.06.2009 was obtained fraudulently and the settlement deed and the partition deed are not binding on the plaintiff. The 5^th defendant created a Will in respect of Item 3 of the suit property and in and by a sale deed dated 05.11.2011, the property was sold in favour of the 4^th defendant. The plaintiff’s father did not execute any Will and in view of the attempts made to deprive the plaintiff of a legitimate share, the plaintiff has come forward to file a suit for partition.

3. Written statement of the 2 ^nd defendant in brief:

The plaint allegations are denied. The property was purchased in the name of Anuma Gounder, with the aid of ancestral nucleus. The property is an ancestral property and not self acquired property of Anuma Gounder. The claim that the property was al