JUDGMENT :

K.Kumaresh Babu, J.

The suit in O.S.No.568 of 2010 was instituted, seeking partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s alleged 1/7th share in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of his father, late Palanisamy Gounder, who had purchased Item Nos.1 and 2 under registered sale deeds dated 14.02.1985 and 29.06.1964 respectively and enjoyed the same till his death. It was pleaded that late Palanisamy Gounder died intestate on 25.05.2010 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 as his legal heirs and that, despite repeated requests made for amicable partition, the defendants failed to co-operate, thereby necessitating the filing of the suit.

2. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 4 and 5, admitting the relationship between the parties as well as the fact that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of late Palanisamy Gounder. However, the defendants specifically denied the allegation that late Palanisamy Gounder died intestate. It was contended that during his lifetime, while in a sound and disposing state of mind, late Palanisamy Gounder had executed three registered settlement deeds dated 27.11.2009 in favour of defendants 1, 4 and 5 respectively, under Document Nos.5281/2009, 5279/2009 and 5280/2009, and had also delivered possession of the settled properties to them. It was further pleaded that the settlement deeds had been acted upon, pattas mutated in their names and revenue records accordingly changed.

3. The contesting defendants further contended that defendants 2, 3 and 6 had already been adequately provided for during their marriages by late Palanisamy Gounder with jewels, seers and other gifts and, therefore, there was no necessity for him to allot any separate share to them in the suit properties. It was also pleaded that late Palanisamy Gounder and his legal heirs had sold certain ancestral properties on 14.06.2006 and that the plaintiff alone had appropriated the sale proceeds without distributing the shares due to late Palanisamy Gounder and the other sharers. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had also threatened late Palanisamy Gounder demanding share in the suit properties, compelling him to lodge a police complaint in Avinashi Police Station on 04.10.2007. It was further contended that Item No.2 of the suit properties was jointly owned with third parties and, therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. Defendants 2 and 6 filed a separate written statement substantially supporting the defence taken by defendants 1, 4 and 5. They admitted the relationship between the parties and the acquisition of the suit properties by late Palanisamy Gounder. However, they specifically pleaded that neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2, 3 and 6 were entitled to any share in Item No.1 of the suit property in view of the registered settlement deeds executed by late Palanisamy Gounder in favour of defendants 1, 4 and 5 on 27.11.2009. It was further pleaded that possession of the settled properties had also been handed over to the respective settlees and that the settlement deeds had come into force on the very date of execution.

5. Defendants 2 and 6 further contended that they, along with the 3rd defendant, had already been suitably provided for during their marriages and that substantial jewels and gifts had been given to them. According to them, the plaintiff had appropriated the entire sale consideration received from the sale of ancestral properties without sharing the same with other legal heirs and, therefore, late Palanisamy Gounder had intentionally excluded the plaintiff from the benefits under the settlement deeds. They also questioned the valuation of the suit and the sufficiency of the court fee paid.

6. The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. While admitting that the suit properties were the s