The court upheld the admissibility of an unstamped partition document after payment of stamp duty, affirming that plaintiffs' actions indicated acceptance of the partition, leading to dismissal of their appeal.

JUDGMENT

(The judgment of this Court was delivered by J.Nisha Banu,J.)

This Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.15 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, dismissing the suit.

2. The appellants filed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 1996 on the file of Sub- Court, Hosur and the suit was later transferred to the Additional District .

Court, Krishnagiri and numbered as O.S.No.15 of 2005 The suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking for a direction, directing the defendants to divide the suit properties into 64 equal shares and allot 63 shares to the plaintiffs, in default, permit the plaintiffs to seek final decree proceedings and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating the suit properties and cost.

3. The 1st appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and appellants 10 to 12 were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased 1st appellant. The 4th appellant, 6th appellant and 11th appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and respondents 28 to 30, respondents 25 & 26 and 27th respondent were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 4th appellant, 6th appellant and 11th appellant respectively. The respondents 2 and 3 also died during the pendency of the above appeal and respondents 17 to 20 and respondents 21 to 23 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively. The respondents 13 to 15 were brought on record as legal representative of the deceased 3rd plaintiff and 16th respondent was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased 6th plaintiff.

4. The 1st respondent/ 1st defendant and the 11th plaintiff(died) are the legally wedded wife of one T.V.Krishnappa who died in the year 1974 at Chokkanthapuram Village. The 1st respondent/1st defendant is the 1st wife of T.V.Krishnappa and 11th plaintiff is the legally wedded 2nd wife of T.V.Krishnappa and their relationship is not disputed. The 11th plaintiff is a close relative of T.V.Krishnappa and so the 2nd marriage was celebrated because the 1st defendant was not having any male children. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant is the daughter of the 1st respondent/1st defendant through Krishnappa. Similarly, the plaintiffs 1 to 10 are the children of the deceased through the 11th plaintiff. The plaintiffs 1 to 11 and defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Krishnappa for inheriting his share in the joint family properties.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 mainly on the ground that a Will was executed by Krishnappa in favour of defendants 1 and 2 during his lifetime in respect of an extent of one Acre in S.No.108, ¾ Acre in S.No.86, one Acre in S.No.66, 3.5 Acres in S.No.44/1 in Chokkanathapuram Village and a tiled house. It is further stated that there was a partition in the family by a Partition Muchalika and it is the specific case of the defendants 1 and 2 that few items in the suit properties, namely, Sl.Nos.3 and 4 in Item No.2 of the suit properties, viz., an extent of 0.01.5 Hectare in S.No.44/1B1 in Chokkanathapuram Village and another extent of 2.07.0 Hectares in S.No.44/1B2 in the same village, were allotted to defendants 1 and 2 and that, by virtue of the said Partition Muchalika, they became absolute owners of the properties. In the written statement, it is further stated that patta was granted on the basis of the said Partition Muchalika in favour of the respective parties and that defendants 1 and 2 have sold the properties in favour of defendants 3 to 8 under a registered sale deed dated 26.07.1995, which is marked as Ex.B4. On the basis of the sale deed, the defendants 3 to 8 also obtained patta. The Revenue documents produced before the Court also establish the same. In the written statement, it is also alleged that the plaintiffs have also dealt with the properties that were allotted to them in the unregi