JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.217 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, are the appellants herein. They had suffered an adverse decree by judgment dated 26.06.2007. Thereafter, they filed a first appeal in A.S.No.53 of 2007, which was also dismissed by the Second Additional Sub Court, at Cuddalore, by judgment dated 11.09.2008.

This has necessitated them to file the present second appeal.

2.The second appeal had not been admitted.

3.I would refer to the appellants as plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants.

4.The case of the plaintiffs was that the property which was the subject matter of the suit could be divided into two schedules A & B. The first plaintiff claimed declaration of title over the A schedule property and the second plaintiff claimed declaration of title over the B schedule property. They further claimed that the said property as a whole was purchased by the first plaintiff consequent to his earnings in the Army and as Security Officer on retirement.

5.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants herein that the property specified in the plaint schedule is an individual/self- acquired property of the first plaintiff. But unfortunately, he seems to have a tendency, to create encumbrances over the said property and therefore, document was executed and later interfered with and further documents executed.

6.In this manner, he had first executed a settlement deed on

17.06.1987. Then he wrote a Will on 09.11.1994 which was registered. Then a partition deed was entered into on 06.08.1998. Then unilaterally, he went to the Sub Registrar office and revoked the said partition deed.

Thereafter, he executed another settlement deed in favour of another member of his family.

7.Though it is to be appreciated that he had purchased the property, this attitude of executing documents going over to the Registrar Office and executing another document and revoking the same can hardly be appreciated.

8.Based on the partition deed, rights had accrued to the defendants and they started to exercise such rights.

9.The suit was filed seeking declaration of title. Both the Courts negatived the contention of the plaintiffs/appellants herein and stated that once the partition deed had been executed and the property was described as joint family property,valuable right had flown to the co-sharers who had participated in the partition deed and therefore, such right cannot be revoked unilaterally by one of the parties. That position of law is correct and cannot be interfered with.

10.The first plaintiff who was the purchaser of the property has died.

However, the second plaintiff is still alive. The specific finding of both the Courts below has been that the revocation of the partition deed cannot be accepted in law and such revocation has no legal effect and is not binding particularly when it had been unilaterally revoked by one of the executors of the partition deed. It is for these reasons that the suit has been dismissed and the first appeal has also been dismissed.

11.The learned counsel for the appellants however pointed out that there has been a discussion and the first appellate Court had held that the property was a self-acquired property of the first plaintiff/first appellant herein and therefore, the learned counsel raised a doubt as to how self- acquired property could be the subject matter of partition when the title holder was still alive.

12.The first appellate Court, in the very same judgment had then moved forward to examine the partition deed where the property has been described as family property which was available for partition and therefore, the parties had entered into a partition deed. I would retain the judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. In view of the fact that the first plaintiff/first appellant had died and the partition stores in the face of the second plaintiff /second appellant, unless necessary legal steps are taken to set aside the partition