Objections to a document's admissibility must be raised at the time of marking; failing to do so waives such objections, affecting the recognition of Oral Family Arrangements under relevant laws.

ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

The Revision Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents 1 to 7 herein are the Defendants in the Original Suit in O.S.No.87 of 2010 on the file of 'the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'). Respondents 8 & 9 herein are the Legal Representatives of the Deceased 2^nd Respondent. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties herein will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

2. For better appraisal of the facts of the case, this Court deems fit to reproduce hereunder the genealogy chart annexed along with the plaint:-

3. Case of the Plaintiff as presented in the plaint is that a portion of Suit Item No.1 was bequeathed to Lakshmanasamy Mudaliar by his father - Duraisamy Mudaliar by Will dated August 19, 1968. Suit Item Nos.2 and 3 were purchased by Lakshmanasamy Mudaliar as his separate property. Suit Item Nos.4 and 5 were purchased by Lakshmanasamy Mudaliar during his life time out of his own income by selling roasted nuts at Tindivanam, in the name of his wife, the 1^st Defendant for the benefit of his children including the Plaintiff, who were all minors at the time of purchase. Further, the 1^st Defendant has no independent source of income to purchase those lands. Hence, Suit Item Nos.4 and 5 are separate properties of Lakshamanasamy Mudaliar.

3.1. Lakshamanasamy Mudaliar through his first wife had two daughters, who were married off during his lifetime and they have no right in the Suit Properties. Lakshamanasamy Mudaliar divorced his first wife in 1958 and married the first defendant as his second wife. Lakshamanasamy Mudaliar passed away on September 9, 1978. One of his son – Baskaran alias Ranganathan passed away on January 30, 2002 leaving behind his wife / third defendant as his legal heir. Hence, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled each ¼ share in the Suit Properties.

3.2. While so, Suit Item No.4 was sold in favour of 4^th and 5^th Defendants vide registered Sale Deeds even dated January 28, 2002 by the 1^st Defendant at the instigation of the 2^nd Defendant. Further, the 2^nd Defendant obtained a Settlement Deed dated February 6, 2002 from 1^st Defendant in respect of a portion of the Suit Properties. These were done with a view to defeat and defraud the Plaintiff's rights over the Suit Properties. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the Suit seeking partition and declaration that the Sale Deeds and the Settlement Deed are null and void and do not bind the Plaintiff.

3.3. The 1^st Defendant passed away on December 20, 2006 and hence the plaint was amended to the effect that the Plaintiff and the Defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to 1/3 share each in the Suit Properties.

4. The 2^nd Defendant filed a Written Statement denying the plaint averments. It is stated that the entire Suit Properties are not an absolute properties of Lakshamanasamy Mudaliar. Item Nos.3 and 4 are separate properties of the 1^st Defendant. The Plaintiff demanded partition in 1998. Consequently, a Family Panchayat took place in the presence of relatives and well wishers where an Oral Family Arrangement was arrived at. As per the Oral Family Arrangement, the Plaintiff was given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of relinquishment of her share in the Suit Properties and making an admission to that effect, she executed