IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.01.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA S.A.No.840 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.26687 of 2023 Periyasamy …Appellant Vs

1. Perumal

2. Mohan 3. Saroja 4. Santhi

5. Pichai Ammal

6. Selvam

7. Ravi ...Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2022 passed in A.S.No.9 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.58 of

2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.

For Appellant : Mr.D.N.Dhurgasha For Respondents :Mr.P.Valliappan, senior counsel

1 to 5 for M/s.PV Law Associates for Caveator.

JUDGMENT

The first defendant in a suit O.S.No.58 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur is the appellant before this Court challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed against him.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs had filed the above referred suit for a partition and separate possession of their 10/18^th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for rendition of accounts. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of one Ponnusamy. Ponnusamy and his wife Sellammal had two daughters, Lakshmi and Pichai Ammal(5^th plaintiff) and a son, Periyasamy (1^st defendant). Palanisamy died intestate leaving behind him surviving his wife, Sellammal, two daughters and son. Thereafter, Lakshmi died intestate leaving behind her surviving the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 2 and 3 as her legal heirs. The defendants 2 and 3 have not supported the plaintiffs and is supporting the first defendant and therefore, they have been impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. The 2^nd defendant is none else than the son-in- law of the 1^st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants which had remained undivided and both the plaintiffs and defendants are deemed to be in joint possession. The plaintiffs would submit that in order to defeat their rights, the first defendant was attempting to alienate the suit properties. However, when the plaintiffs have demanded partition, the first defendant was evading their request. This prompted the plaintiffs to issue a legal notice dated 18.10.2013 to which there was no response. Therefore, the suit.

inter-alia

4. The first defendant had filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and contending that the suit properties belonged exclusively to the first defendant. It is his contention that his sister, Lakshmi and Pichai Ammal (5^th plaintiff) had been married 45 years ago by providing jewellery and dowry articles befitting their status. Therefore, they had not claimed any right to the suit properties. He would further contend that in the year 1990, there was an oral partition between him and his father and the suit properties were alloted to his share and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for all these years. Therefore, he sought to have the suit dismissed.

5. The trial Court had framed the following issues.

1/ 1k; gpujpthjp Fwpg;gpLtJ nghy; 1990y; 1k; gpujpthjpf;Fk; bghd;Drhkpf;Fk; ,ilna tha;bkhHp FLk;g Vwg; hL eilbgw;wjh>

2/jhth brhj;Jff; spy; bghd;Drhkpf;F vtt; pj chpika[k; ,y;iyah>

3/thjp nfhhpa ghfgg; phptpid ghpfhuk; mtUfF;

fpilff; jj; ff; jh>

4/thjpf;F ntW vdd; ghpfhuk; fpilff; jj; ff; J>

6. The first plaintiff had examined himself as P.W1 and the 5^th plaintiff was examined as P.W2 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on their side. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant had examined himself as D.W1 and one Thiagarajan as D.W2 and no documents were marked on their side.

7. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur by his judgment and decree dated 01.12.2018 was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. The learned