The court ruled that an oral partition established the properties as separate and self-acquired, barring claims for partition after 18 years and validating a gift deed executed by the coparcener.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2022 made in A.S.No.18 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2019 made in O.S. No. 238 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Hosur.

2.The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows:

The 1^st defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are the sisters and brother of the plaintiff. The suit properties originally belong to one Bayya Reddy ancestrally, and patta also stood in the name of Bayya Reddy. The said Bayya Reddy died leaving behind his wife Ramakka and three sons namely, Rama Reddy, Narayana Reddy and Seetharama Reddy as his legal heirs to succeed the family's ancestral property including the suit properties. After the death of Bayya Reddy, his wife Ramakka and sons divided their family ancestral properties under a registered partition deed dated 18.06.1986. In the said partition deed, the suit properties were allotted to the share of Rama Reddy as 'A' schedule. From the date of partition, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 along with Rama Reddy were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and in the revenue records, patta numbers 485 and 674 was recorded in the name of Rama Reddy. All the suit properties are ancestral properties and the plaintiff is entitled to 7/36 share, the defendants 2 to 5 are each are also entitled to 7/36 share and the 1^st defendant is entitled to 1/36 share i.e., the defendants 1 to 5 are entitled to common 29/36 shares and the plaintiff is entitled to 7/36 shares in all the suit properties. There was no partition between the defendants 1 to 5. After the demise of Rama Reddy on 16.02.2008, the plaintiff and defendants as his legal are entitled to succeed the suit properties. Even during the lifetime of Rama Reddy, the plaintiff was residing at Attibele Village and used to visit the suit properties every week, contribute to the expenses for cultivation and take mahasools from the properties every year. The defendants 1 to 5 along with Rama Reddy attempted to dispose the suit properties without the plaintiff's consent and knowledge and also tried to change the revenue records in the name of the 2^nd defendant. They also tried to sell the trees standing in the suit properties. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants refused to divide the suit properties.

3.During pendency of the suit, the 6^th defendant, Chennaveera Reddy tried to sell the suit property to third parties, claiming that his grandfather had executed a gift deed in his favour on 14.11.2007 in respect of the land in S.No.242/1 measuring 3.05 acres, shown as 9^th item in the suit schedule. The said Rama Reddy had no right to execute the settlement deed in favour of the 6^th defendant as the same is an ancestral property of the family. Hence, the plaintiff prays for the following reliefs:

a) to pass a preliminary decree directing the defendants to divide the suit properties into 36 shares by metes and bounds and allot 7 such divided share to the plaintiff and direct the defendants to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff within the time allowed by this Honourable Court;

b) failing which, the plaintiff to be given liberty to apply to the Honourable court for passing of the final decree and get the properties divided by means of a court Commissioner, and take delivery of their share throu