Oral transfers of property are invalid without formal documentation; joint heirs maintain equal ownership rights upon intestate succession.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit has been filed as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 52 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Jude, Tirunelveli, Wherein respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed a suit for the relief of partition and the same was decreed. 2.As against the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, the second and third defendants have preferred this present appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Trial Court.

4. The gist of the plaint averments are as follows:

Originally the suit properties belongs to one Kannan @

Sudalaikan, S/o.Balaiya Thevar. The first scheduled property is residential house and second schedule property is agricultural land and the same was purchased by the said Kannan @ Sudalaikan through sale deed dated 12.07.2001. The said Kannan @ Sudalaikan died intestate on 23.06.2006 leaving behind his wife first plaintiff and his daughters 2 to 4 plaintiffs and first defendant as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. The plaintiffs and the first defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs are entitled to 4/5 share and the first defendants is entitled to 1/5 share over the suit properties. The first defendant colluded with the second defendant sold the second schedule of the property on 30.06.2011 through sale deed. Based on that sale deed the second defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property. The plaintiffs 1 and 3 have plantained banana plantains in the second schedule of the property. The first defendants settled at Mumbai and even during the life time of his father itself had never raised any crops in the second schedule property. The second defendant along with their henchmen created a fence over the second schedule property .Thereafter the plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant executed sale deed in favour of the third defendant who is the minor son of the second defendant. Therefore he is also added as party. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their 4/5 share over the suit properties.

5. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The relationship of the parties and the nature of properties are admitted . It is denied that the plaintiffs are in joint possession with the defendants and they have 4/5 shares over the property. Infact the plaintiffs have no right over the suit properties At any point of time during the life time of his father the first defendant left from the matrimonial home and stayed separately with another person. The defendants 2 to 4 are under the maintenance of the first defendant and he only performed marriage to them. Therefore the father of the first defendant during his life time in the presence of relatives and plaintiffs 2 to 4 orally relinquished the properties to him, thereafter the first defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the properties till 23.06.2006. The first defendant sold the property to third defendant through second defendant on 30.06.2011 and the possession was also given to them on the date of sale itself. The plaintiffs have no right over the property and thereby they are are not entitled to any share over the property.

6.The written statement filed second defendant are as follows.

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. limine. The plaintiffs have not come to this Court with clean hands. The relationship between the parties are admitted. The father of the first defendant during his life time in the presence of 2 to 4 plaintiffs orally partitioned the properties and allotted the property to the first defendant. The first plaintiff was living with another man for the past so many years. The first defendant alone w