JUDGMENT

The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.47 of 2012, dated 29.01.2014, on the file of II Additional District Court, Trichy.

2. The gist of the plaintiff's case in short is as follows:

(a) One Mariyayee and her husband Vadivelu had two sons viz., Chellamuthu and Muthukaruppan and a daughter by name Thangaponnammal. Chellamuthu had a son viz., Shanmugam and Muthukaruppan had two sons viz., Balasubramanian (plaintiff) and Ramachandran. The first defendant Saroja is the wife of the said Shanmugam and the second defendant Sasikala is the daughter and the third defendant Sathish Kumar is the said Shanmugam and Saroja. Mariyayee's daughter Thangaponnammal had no issues. There was a strained relationship between the first defendant and her husband and that resulted in a maintenance case in M.C.No.22 of 1988.

(b) The said Mariyayee Ammal had executed a gift settlement deed in favour of her daughter Thangaponnammal, vide document dated 23.01.1961 settling the suit property in her name. It is evident from the recitals of the settlement deed that if any child is born to Thangaponnammal, her child will take one share and her other three grandsons will take two shares and in the absence of any legal heir to Thangaponnammal, the properties will devolve upon the said Shanmugam, Balasubramanian and Ramachandran. The said Ramachandran had died as a bachelor in or about 1978 leaving behind his brother – the plaintiff herein. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to 2/3 shares and whereas the defendants are entitled to 1/3 share in the suit property.

(c) The plaintiff has constructed a house on the western part of the property leaving space as pathway in between the portion in occupation of the plaintiff and the remaining area of the suit property. The plaintiff is entitled to 3200sqft. The defendants are occupying the area more than 1600sqft and they have also blocked the access of the plaintiff from his house towards Jeeva street by blocking the same by taking out a compound wall. The plaintiff's repeated demands for partition were of no avail. Hence, the plaintiff has sent a legal reply dated 01.03.2012 with untrue facts. Meanwhile, the said Thangaponnammal along with Shanmugam have executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendants. But Thangaponnammal had no right to execute any document with respect to the property. Moreover the said settlement deed has been revoked by the said Thangaponnammal on 01.12.1987. Hence, the above suit for partition claiming 2/3 shares in the suit property.

3. The defence of the defendants 1 to 3 in short is as follows:

The first defendant is the adopted daughter of Thangaponnammal.

Thangaponnammal had executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendants and in that document, the first defendant has been referred as the adopted daughter of Thangaponnammal. The settlement deed executed by Thangaponnammal is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff. But the defendants have filed a suit in O.S.No.592 of 2003 against Thangaponnammal and the same was decreed on 05.12.2003. The defendants have come to know recently that Thangaponnammal had revoked the settlement deed. Even otherwise, such revocation is invalid and the settlement already made holds good. The plaintiff has come forward with the suit after several years and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has undervalued the suit and there is no cause of action and the alleged one is false and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of rendition of accounts?

(3) Whether it is true that Thangaponnammal settled her property on 13.05.1993 in favour of the defendants? (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(5) To what relief?

5. During trial, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 11 do