The property in question ceased to be ancestral due to prior Release Deeds; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim for partition and their action was barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The defendants 2 to 5 in a suit for partition and separate possession are the appellants in this First Appeal.

II. PLEADINGS:

2.1. PLAINT, IN BRIEF:

The suit property, an ancestral joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, originally belonged to C. Ekamabara hetty and Munuswamy hetty. The said Munuswamy hetty and his son Shanmuga hetty executed a deed of release in favour of Ekambara hetty, way back in the year, 1937, relinquishing their rights in the suit property in favour of Ekamabara hetty. The first defendant is the son of Ekambara hetty. The first defendant had two sisters by name C.Sulochana and .Saraswathi. They had also executed a Release Deed in favour of the first defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 have sold an extent of 2,044 sq.ft out of 3,836 sq.ft to one Krishnamurthy, under sale deed dated 21.08.1986 and retained the remaining 1,792 sq.ft. which is the suit property. The property has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs requested the defendants 1 to 3, claiming their share in the property but however, the defendants evaded an amicable partition. The plaintiff thereafter applied for an Encumbrance ertificate and came to know that on 19.02.2019, the first defendant, behind the back of the plaintiffs had settled the property in favour of defendants 4 and 5, who are sons of the defendants 2 and 3, respectively. The first defendant had no right to execute the settlement deed and they are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The suit property will fetch not less than Rs.15,000/- per month if rented out and the plaintiffs claiming partition and mense profits, issued a notice on 01.03.2019 and despite receipt of the notice, the defendants did not comply with the demands made by the plaintiffs, necessitating the plaintiffs to file the suit for partition.

2.2. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT IN BRIEF:

The first defendant, being the father of the plaintiffs, filed a written statement stating that he has no objection for the suit being decreed.

2.3. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE SECOND DEFENDANT AND ADOPTED BY THE FOURTH DEFENDANT, IN BRIEF:

The suit property was a separate property of C.E.Selvaraj, the first defendant by virtue of Release Deeds in Doc. Nos.2754 and 2785 of 1978 and on and from the said dates of the registered Release Deeds, the properties lost its character of joint family property and had become absolute property of the first defendant. The first defendant sold a portion of the property measuring 2044 sq.ft only in order to meet the marriage expenses of the plaintiff and retained the remaining property and he was in separate and absolute enjoyment of the same. The first and second defendants have already released their rights in the property in favour of defendants 2 and 3, but however, the said document was not registered since the plaintiffs had no title over the suit property and the defendants also believed that the plaintiffs would not claim any right in future. The plaintiffs cannot challenge the settlement deeds, in and whereby, the first defendant has settled the properties and divested himself of all his rights in the suit property in favour of his minor grandchildren. The settlement deeds were acted and revenue records were also mutated in the name of the minor children and taxes and other public outgoing are paid only in the names of the minor children. The suit property is not fetching any rental incomes and it is in dilapidated condition. The plaintiffs were informed even in 2010 that the suit property has been settled in favour of the grandchildren and there