Properties claimed as self-acquired were determined to be ancestral; the appeal for partition was dismissed due to lack of joint possession evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, also barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court, is the appellant.

2. PLEADINGS:

2.1.PLAINT IN BREIF:

The plaintiff and the first defendant are sister and brother respectively. Defendants 2 to 4 are the children of the first defendant. The first item of suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant Krishnasamy Gounder, he having become entitled to the same under the partition deed dated 22.10.1961. The second item of the property belonged to the Krishnasamy Gounder, the father. He had purchased it under sale deeds dated 16.07.1961 and 05.06.1973. The third item of the suit property belonged to Krishnasamy Gounder by way of intestate succession. All these properties are self acquired properties of Krishnasamy Gounder and he was in separate possession and enjoyment of the suit property for three decades before he died in a motor accident and the plaintiff being a daughter and Class-I legal heir, was entitled to an equal 50% share in all the items of the suit property. The plaintiff and the first defendant have been in joint possession of all the properties without partition. The plaintiff requested the first defendant for amicable partition several times. On 10.05.2017, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had executed a false document in respect of one of the properties, by way of sale in favour of his own son, the second defendant. Similarly, he is also entitled to a partition in respect of the third item of the suit property. The plaintiff's half share cannot be taken away by such documents and the plaintiff is not bound by the documents executed by her brother.

2.2.WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 to 3, IN BREIF:

The relationship between the parties is not denied. The properties are not self acquired properties of Krishnasamy Gounder, but ancestral properties belonging to the first defendant. Rasa Gounder, who was the father of the Krishnasamy Gounder who was owning extensive ancestral lands in Iduvai Village and there was no other source of income, except for the income from the said ancestral properties. The grandfather Rasa Gounder, was irrigating the lands by raising commercial crops like cotton, tobacco, onion, plantain etc. and out of the income accruing from the said ancestral lands, Rasa Gounder, purchased agricultural lands in the name of his sons, viz., Krishnasamy Gounder and Karuppa Gounder. In and by partition deed dated 22.10.1961, Rasa Gounder has entered into a partition along with his sons Krishnasamy Gounder and Karuppa Gounder, where also there is a clear mention that the properties are ancestral properties. Therefore, the claim that the properties standing in the name of Krishnasamy Gounder, are the self acquired properties is stoutly denied. Krishnasamy Gounder, purchased the second item of the property only out of income from the lands allotted to him under the partition deed dated 22.10.1961 in June, 1970 and therefore, the said properties were also ancestral in nature. The father Krishnasamy Gounder, never treated the properties as self acquired properties at any point of time. Krishnasamy Gounder, himself died 40 years back in the year 1978 and the plaintiff was married even during the lifetime of Krishnasamy Gounder to his elder sister’s son and was presented with 50 servings of jewellery during the marriage.

2.3. The defendants also plead an oral family arrangement in the year 1979, in which the plaint