JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.501 of 2007 before the District Munsif, Thirumangalam for partition claiming 3/4th share over the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to alienate the suit properties to third parties before partition is effected. The plaintiffs further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from erasing the physical features of the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.50 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Thirumangalam. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs filed the present Second Appeal.

3. The plaintiffs had contended that suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Kantha Thevar ancestrally and he died leaving behind his wife Kumarayee Ammal and four daughters by name, Kumarayee Ammal, Ramayee Ammal, Alagammal and Meenakshi Ammal. The legal heirs of Meenakshi Ammal were impleaded as D1 to D3. One of the daughters of Kantha Thevar, Kumarayee Ammal is the plaintiff. The legal heirs of the other daughter, Ramayee Ammal are plaintiffs 2 to 6. The seventh plaintiff is one of the daughters of the Kantha Thevar. Meenakshi Ammal had a son by name, Bose whose legal heirs are D4 and D5. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to 3/4th share in the suit schedule properties.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim partition. In paragraph No.6 of the said written statement, the first defendant has pointed out that one of the legal heirs of Meenakshi Ammal namely, Sakkarai has not been impleaded. That apart, all the legal heirs of the deceased son of Meenakshi Ammal have not been impleaded in the present suit. The non impleaded parties are also entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. The first defendant also filed an additional written statement contending that his mother Meenakshi Ammal had executed several settlement deeds in his favour, in which S.No.79/2C1 has been dealt with by the said Meenakshi Ammal as her absolute property. In paragraph No.15 of additional written statement, the first defendant has contended that the plaintiff has wantonly omitted S.No.79/2C1 in the suit schedule properties and hence, the suit is bad for partial partition.

6. The plaintiffs filed a reply statement. In paragraph No.5 of the reply statement, the plaintiff had contended that all the necessary parties have been impleaded and the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs also disputed the fact that the suit is bad for partial partition.

7. The trial Court after analysis of the oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not impleaded the sons of Kantha Thevar who were begotten through the second wife. That apart, all the legal heirs of Meenakshi Ammal have not been impleaded. The trial Court further found that suit is bad for partial partition for not including some of the items of the joint family property.

8. The First Appellate Court held that the sons of Kantha Thevar through second wife namely, Rajendiran and Sakthivel have not been impleaded in the suit, alleging that they do not have a share in the suit schedule properties. The First Appellate Court also found that Exhibits B1 to B5 disclose that Meenakshi Ammal had created several settlement deeds covering S.No.79/2C1 and S.No.44/9 which have not been included as suit schedule properties. Based upon the said findings, the First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed for partial partition. As against the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have filed the above Second Appeal.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant had