IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA A.S.No.633 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.19086 of 2019 Kannan …Appellant Vs

1. Padmavathy

2. Sourna Rani ...Respondents Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.01.2019 and made in O.S.No.83 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram.

For Appellant : Mr.B.Ramamoorthy For Respondents: Mr.T.Saravanan

JUDGMENT

The parties for ease of understanding are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

Relief claimed in the suit

2. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property has been described in the plaint as follows:

DESCRIPTION OF SUIT PROPERTY rpjk;guk; uP/o/ rpjk;guk; rg;o. rpjk;guk; tl;lk;. rpjk;guk; lt[d;. t/c/rp/ bjU. fjt[ vz; 85 cs;s thh;L be/4. gpshf;/be/5. lt[d; rh;nt vz;/ 430y; ml';fpa 1918 rJuo tp!;jPuKs;s tPl;L kid/

ehd;bfy;iy= t/c/rp/ bjUt[f;Fk; nkw;F.

j';fntY gj;jh; tPL njhl;lj;jpw;F bjw;F. lhf;lh;

fpUc&;zrhkp tPL njhl;lj;jpw;F tlf;F.

rPDthr brl;oahh; brhj;Jf;F fpHf;F PLAINTIFF'S CASE:

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the youngest son and Palaniappan is the eldest son of one Thangavel Padayachi and Seethalakshmi. The suit property originally belonged to Alamelu Ammal, who had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 01.06.1955 in favour of the said Thangavel Padayachi and Seethalakshmi. By reason of this settlement deed, which had been executed at the time of marriage of Thangavel Padayachi and Seethalakshmi, each of them were entitled to a ½ share in the said property.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that settlement deed was executed and acted upon. Two of the settlees have been in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since the date of the settlement deed.

5. On 09.05.2000, Seethalakshmi Ammal had executed a registered settlement deed in respect of her undivided share in favour of her eldest son, Palaniappan. The remaining half share belonged to her husband Thangavel Padayachi . Thereafter, Thangavel Padayachi had executed a registered Will dated 07.05.2008 under which he had bequeathed his ½ share to his younger son, the plaintiff, while retaining a life interest for himself. On the death of Thangavel Padayachi on 09.10.2012, the Will dated 07.05.2008 had come into effect. The said Palaniappan had also died in the year 2014 and the defendants who are his wife and daughter respectively became entitled to ½ share which had been settled on Palaniappan by his mother Seethalakshmi. The plaintiff would submit that therefore, the plaintiff and the defendants became entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule property.

6. The plaintiff would submit that in the month of July 2016, he had orally called upon the defendants to partition the property and allot his ½ share. However, they had not come forward to partition the same and therefore, left with no other option, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question for the reliefs stated supra.

WRITTEN STATEMNET OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT ADOPTED BY THE SECOND DEFENDANT:

7. The defendants had admitted the relationship that had been set out by the plaintiff and the fact that the properties in question belonged to one Alamelu Ammal. They would also admit the fact that Alamelu Ammal had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 01.06.1955 in favour of Thangavel Padayachi and Seethalakashmi, thereby making the said Thangavel Padayachi and Seethalakshmi equal owners of the suit property. The defendants would also admit the settlement deed that has been executed by Seethalakshmi in favour of Palaniappan.

However, the execution of the Will by Thangavel Padayachi in favour of the plaintiff was denied. They had also denied the plaintiff's claim that he had sought for partition of his undivided share in the property.

8. It is the contention of the defendants tha