Property inherited through the female line constitutes the separate property of the inheritor and not joint family property. Furthermore, a claim of oral partition must be strictly proven, and mere attestation of a document does not create estoppel or imply knowledge of its contents.

O R D E R

The first Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2010 made is O.S.No.01 of 2008. The defendants 2 to 4 in the suit are the appellants herein, 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and the 1st defendant in the suit are the respondents herein. The 1st defendant in the suit is the 3rd respondent herein and he has not entered appearance/ contested, thus the reference to respondents will only mean respondents 1 and 2.

2. The suit was filed by the respondents herein in O.S.No.01 of 2008, for partition of the suit mentioned property into 6 shares and allot two such shares to 1st and 2nd respondents by metes and bounds. The suit was originally with reference to 13 items, however, items 2,7 and 8 are not ancestral properties as it is admittedly the independent/ separate properties owned by the husband of the first appellant and father of the second and third appellants. Thus items 2,7 and 8 are not the subject matter of dispute in this First Appeal. In other words, the present appeal is limited to entitlement of the the respondents to 2/6th shares in the suit item 1,3,4,5,6,9 to 13.

3. Brief Facts relating to the case are set out hereunder:

3.1. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are daughters of late Kuppusamy Naidu. Kuppusamy Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu were born to one Subba Naidu and Subbammal.

3.2. The 1st and 2nd respondents are daughters of late Kuppusamy Naidu, and the first defendant in the suit K.Ramesh Babu is the son of Kuppusamy Naidu. Chinnasamy Naidu is the brother of Kuppusamy Naidu and was married to one Backiyammal who is the first appellant and they have two sons namely C.Ravichandran and C.Sekar who are the 2nd and 3rd appellants herein.

3.3. It is not in dispute that the properties namely 1,3,4,5,6,9 to 13 was originally owned by Subbammal who is the mother of Kuppusamy Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu and the paternal grand mother of the 2nd and 3rd appellants and the respondents herein. Subbammal had purchased the suit properties through various Sale Deeds. It is not in dispute that the properties are the separate properties of Subbammal and her husband Subba Naidu predeceased her. On the death of Subbammal the property devolved on her 2 sons viz., Kuppusamy Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu. Kuppusamy Naidu died on 08.01.1982 and his wife Kanthammal died on 14.11.1995. Chinnasamy Naidu died in the year 1987.

3.4. Whileso, the respondents who were in enjoyment of the properties issued a notice on 11.12.2007, calling upon the appellants for an amicable division of properties which originally belonged to their maternal grand parent viz., Subbammal and which devolved on her death on Kuppusamy Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu. While the 1st appellant acknowledged the said notice, however the notice sent to the appellants 2 and 3 was returned as “no such address”, which according to the respondents herein is factually incorrect.

4. It is the submission of the respondent herein that the property being independent property and owned separately by Subbammal do not belong to the joint family property and constitute an independent line of property distinct from joint family property. That there was no partition as alleged between Kuppusamy Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu. Thus the entire property which originally belonged to Subba Naidu and having devolved on Kuppusamy Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu the respondents are entitled to 2/6th shares in the suit properties.

5. The above claim was resisted by the appellants herein on the following premise viz.,

a) The first defendant who is the son of Kuppusamy Naidu and the brother of the respondents herein had effected a sale of the shares inherited by Kuppusamy Naidu through Subba Naidu in favour of Backiyammal who i