J U D G M E N T

This Appeal Suit has been filed challenging the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin dated 07.10.2016 made in O.S.No.28 of 2013.

2. The appellant is the first defendant. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 have filed the suit for partition of their 4/6th share in the suit property; the properties described in Item No.1 of the first schedule was purchased by the mother of the plaintiffs namely Petchiammal by virtue of a sale deed dated 14.11.1988; she was in absolute enjoyment of the same; items 2 and 3 of first schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Parvathiammal, who is the mother of Petchiammal; Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the first schedule was purchased by Parvathiammal in a court auction sale held in E.A.No.416 of 1960 in O.S.No.239 of 1957 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin; the said Parvathiammal was in enjoyment of the properties acquired by her till her life time; after the death of Parvathiammal, the properties belonged to Parvathiammal's was inherited by her daughter Petchiammal; on 26.01.2003, Petchiammal died intestate leaving behind her husband Subbaiah Pillai and her sons and daughters, who are arrayed as the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case;

2.1 The properties described in second schedule was allotted to the share of Subbaiah Pillai, who is the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants in a partition deed dated 20.05.1983; on 01.08.2006, Subbaiah Pillai also died intestate; hence, the plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to both the first and second schedule of properties as the legal heirs of their deceased parents; since the defendants did not come forward for peaceful partition, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of their 4/6 th share in the suit properties.

3. The second defendant sails along with the plaintiffs 1 to 4.

3.1 The first defendant resisted the suit by stating that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the shares as prayed by them in respect of second and third items of the first schedule; on 02.01.1957, Appavu Easwaramoorthiya Pillai, who is the father of Parvathiammal, has executed a settlement deed, in which life interest was given to his daughter Parvathiammal and his grand-daughter Petchiammal; after their life time, the property should be inherited by female heirs of Petchiammal; only in the absence of any female heirs, the male heirs of Petchiammal can inherit the same; in the absence of both male and female heirs, the properties would be inherited by the male heirs of the executant Appavu Easwaramoorthiya Pillai; since the fourth plaintiff and the first defendant alone are the daughters and female heirs of Petchiammal, they alone are entitled to get half share in Item Nos.2 and 3 in first schedule; the plaintiffs have sold the said properties without the knowledge of the first defendant and hence, the plaintiffs ought to have impleaded the subsequent purchasers also in the suit for partition;

therefore, the suit should be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge has framed the following issues:

1. thjpfSf;F gpuhJ jgrpy; brhj;Jf;fSf;F4/6 ghfk;

fpilff; fT; oajh?

2. njitahd fl;rpf;fhuh;fis nrhf; f; hj njh\j;jpw;F tHf;F cs;shfpwjh?

3. thjpfSf;F fpilff; fT; oa ntW ghpfhuk; vd;d?

5. C.M.P(MD)No.1921 of 2022:

The appellant has filed this petition to receive the certified copy of the settlement deed dated 02.01.1857; the photocopy of the settlement deed was marked as Ex.B.1 on the side of the appellant/first defendant without any objection; the genuineness of the document and signature of Easwaramoorthya PIllai on the settlement deed were not questioned; it is an admitted document; even though the admitted facts need not be proved, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant/first defendant to produce the certified copies of settlement deed as an additional evidence by way of abundant caution; no prejudice would be caused to the plai