In a partition suit, all legal heirs must be parties, and failing to prove a settlement deed invalidates claims to partition. The court upheld the necessity for complete participation of all heirs in adjudications concerning undivided family properties.

JUDGMENT :

P.DHANABAL, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in A.S.No.8 of 2013 dated 08.12.2014 wherein the respondents herein have preferred the said Appeal as against the Decree and Judgment passed by the Subordinate Court in O.S.No.102 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur dated 11.01.2012.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties in this Second Appeal are referred as plaintiff and defendants as referred before the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The suit properties originally belonged to one Kuppugounder through partition in the year 1978. The said Kuppugounder had three sons, namely, Venkatesan (plaintiff), Ramu and Sivaji and one daughter, Ambuja. The said Ambuja got married in the year 1987. While so, the properties of the said Kuppugounder were partitioned between the sons of Kuppugounder through Partition Deed dated 06.06.1994. In the said partition deed, some properties were jointly allotted to Kuppugounder and Ramu through ‘A’ Schedule properties. The ‘B’ schedule properties were allotted to the another son of Kuppugounder, namely, Sivaji. Pursuant to the partition deed dated 06.06.1994, the respective parties were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The said Ramu died intestate leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. Thereafter, the plaintiff, defendants and father of the plaintiff, namely, Kuppugouder jointly enjoyed the properties. In the properties which were allotted through partition deed dated 06.06.1994 as ‘A’ Schedule properties, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share, Kuppugounder is entitled to 1/3 share, the defendants 1 to 3, being legal heirs of Ramu jointly are entitled to 1/3 share.

(ii) The said Kuppugounder executed a settlement deed dated 25.02.2005 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of his 1/3rd share, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 2/3 share and the defendants are jointly entitled to 1/3rd share. When the plaintiff demanded to partition over the properties, the defendants refused for partition, therefore, filed this suit.

4. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the defendants are as follows:-

(i) The suit is false and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averments that the properties are the joint family properties and the defendants are jointly entitled to 1/3rd share and plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share are false. There are two electrical service connection in the schedule of the properties and ninety Coconut trees and two Tamarind trees are also available. The plaintiff’s mother, namely, Rajammal had property in Survey No.39/1 to an extent of 0.85.0 hectares, the said land was omitted to mention in the suit, already the plaintiff issued notice dated 21.02.2008 to the defendants and the same was suppressed. As per partition deed dated 06.06.1994, some properties were allotted to the share of Shivaji and the remaining properties were enjoyed by the plaintiff, his father, Kuppugounder, husband of the 1^st defendant and mother of the plaintiff, namely, Rajammal.

(ii) During the lifetime of Ramu, ten years back, there was an oral partition between the family members and the properties of Kuppugounder and Rajammal were divided into two parts and one part was allotted to Ramu and the another part was allotted to the plaintiff. The property allotted to Ramu was enjoyed by him along with the defendants and they are paying taxes to the Government. The s