JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 23.12.2016 rendered in O.S.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Judge, Sivagangai.

2. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 3 and 12 to 15 in O.S.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Judge, Sivagangai. The respondents are the plaintiff and other defendants in that suit. The 1st respondent filed the suit for partition.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiff (1st respondent herein):-

The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 are children of late. Muthaiah Asari and Muthammal. The defendants 6 to 11 are children of the eldest daughter Ramathilagam of Late Muthaiah Asari and Muthammal. The said Muthaiah Asari was a goldsmith and ran a jewellery shop. He purchased the suit properties in the name of Muthammal on 16.04.1966 from one Ramasamy Chettiar and one Karuppayee. Later, he constructed a building in 1971 and they have been residing there as a joint family property. The mother Muthammal was affected by paralysis in 1982 and died in the year 1992. The father Muthaiah Asari died in the year 1986. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded for partition. The defendants 1 to 5 evaded partition. In the meanwhile, the defendants 1 and 4 uttered that they would alienate the suit properties. So, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 02.12.2012 to the defendants, but the defendants did not send any reply. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of her 1/7 share in the suit properties.

(b) The case of the defendants 1 to 3 and 12 to 15:-

The plaintiff suppressed the prior legal notice, dated 08.08.2011 sent by the plaintiff and the reply notice 03.09.2011 sent by the defendants. The suit property and house absolutely belonged to the mother Muthammal. The father, Muthaiah Asari as the joint family manager, admitted the absolute title of Muthammal. She executed a registered Will, dated 04.01.1983, in favour of her sons, namely the defendants 1 to 4. The mother Muthammal died on 15.11.1992 and her last Will came into force. So, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. Moreover, the defendants 1 to 3 had already filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.121 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Devakottai, in which a final decree for partition was passed on 07.01.2002. In the earlier reply notice, dated 03.09.2011 sent by these defendants were clearly stated about these facts. The defendants are enjoying their respective portions as per the final decree passed in O.S.No.121 of 2000. The Court fee paid U/s.37(2) is not correct. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both parties.

(1) Whether the Will dated 04.01.1983 is true?

(2) Whether the partition as per decree in O.S.No.121 of 2000 will bind the plaintiff?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7^th share in the schedule mentioned properties?

(4) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

6. During the trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked four documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On the defendants' side, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14 were marked.

7. On appreciation of evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the trial Court held that the defendants have produced only a copy of the Will and that the female members were not parties to the earlier suit, thereby, it passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 1/7th share in the suit properties by its judgment and decree, dated 23.12.2016.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 23.12.2016, the defendants 1 to 3 and 12 to 15 have preferred this appeal.

9. Along with the appeal, the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 and 12 to 15 have filed the petition in C.M.P(MD)No.5000 of 2017 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., to receive the document, namely th