JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]

The defendants in the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Salem are the appellants in the above appeal.

2. The sole respondent herein as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2011 for partition of her 7/20th shares in all the suit properties and for consequential reliefs.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has filed a Memo dated 27.09.2022 indicating that the 1st appellant who is the mother-in-law of the sole respondent by name Jothi died on 18.01.2020. Since the daughters of 1st appellant are also on record as appellants 2 to 4, this Court is inclined to record the death of 1st appellant and the status of appellants 2 to 4 as legal heirs of the deceased 1st appellant.

4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of one Kandasamy who is the son of one Muthu Gounder. The suit properties are described in two items comprising of agricultural properties and house.

5. It is admitted that the suit properties were allotted to the father of said Kandasamy under a registered Partition Deed dated 15.07.1974 which was among the heirs of his father Muthu Gounder. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to character of suit properties as ancestral.

6. It is admitted that the wife of Kandasamy by name Sellammal is the 1st appellant herein and the 1st defendant in the suit. Kandasamy died leaving behind his wife, three daughters and the plaintiff's husband one Mr.Soundaram @ Soundararajan who was the only one son of Kandasamy. Mr.Soundaram @ Soundararajan married the plaintiff on 14.03.1999 but died on 23.12.1999. The three daughters of Kandasamy are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit.

7. The suit was contested by the defendants mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had left the matrimonial home after the death of her husband Mr.Soundaram @ Soundararajan. It is the case of the plaintiff in the suit that there was a panchayat pursuant to which the plaintiff had relinquished her right in the suit properties. Though an unregistered Release of Deed dated 14.03.2000 is relied upon by the defendants, however, the defendants have not proved the execution of the unregistered Release Deed through sufficient evidence. The defendants only stated that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the employer of plaintiff's deceased husband as compensation and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid to the plaintiff by the Government through the Member of Legislative Assembly. It is only based on the panchayat under an unregistered Release Deed the defendants claimed that the plaintiff will not get any share in the ancestral properties of the said Kandasamy.

8. The defendants / appellants specifically pleaded that the said Kandasamy executed a Will in respect of all the suit properties in favour of other defendants on 21.08.2000.

9. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

“(i) whether the plaintiff is having 7/20th share in the suit properties?

(ii) whether the plaintiff has released her right in the property in favour of the 1st defendant's husband namely Kandasamy?

(iii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition and possession?

(iv) whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?

(v) whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper?

(vi) to what right the plaintiffs are entitled to?”

10. Before the Trial Court the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A12. On the side of the defendants / appellants three witnesses were examined including the 4th defendant who had been examined as D.W.1. Defendants marked Exs.B1 to B17. The Trial Court held that the unregistered Release Deed alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff is not proved. The Trial Court held that the 1st defendant's husband by name Kandasamy had no right to deal with the entire property. However, it is held that the said Kandasamy is entitled to execute the Will to the e