Claims of ouster in partition suits must be substantiated with concrete evidence, or they will be dismissed.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The defendants in O.S.No.82 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, are the appellants herein.

2. O.S.No.82 of 2013 had been instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs, who are two sisters, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, each claiming 1/4 share therein. The defendants/appellants are the brothers of the plaintiffs/respondents.

3. By judgment dated 29.11.2016, the suit was decreed with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, and a preliminary decree was passed, declaring that each of the two plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4 share in the said items.

4. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.123 of 2017 seeking passing of a final decree. The appellants/defendants, in turn, filed C.M.P. (MD)No.3829 of 2018 seeking stay of further proceedings in I.A.No.123 of 2017. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 27.06.2018, granted an interim stay, specifically restraining the passing of the final decree alone.

5. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs filed C.M.P.(MD)No.6582 of 2022, seeking to vacate the interim stay granted earlier. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are now pending adjudication.

O.S.No.82 of 2013 [ IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli ] :-

6. The plaintiffs, Mariammal and Kulanthaivel Nachiyar are the sisters of the defendants [Selvaraj and Velladurai]. The suit schedule properties originally belonged to their mother, Krishna Mani, who died intestate on 21.05.1952. Upon her demise, she was survived by her husband, Durai Pandiyan, the plaintiffs and defendants, and another son, Poolidurai, all of whom constituted her legal heirs.

7. Durai Pandiyan subsequently died intestate on 13.06.1994, and Poolidurai, who remained unmarried, also died intestate in the year 2009.

8. It is relevant to note that Krishna Mani had inherited the suit schedule properties as the sole legal heir of her father, Subbiah Thalaivanar, who died intestate on 02.07.1972. The said properties had originally been allotted to Subbiah Thalaivanar through a registered partition deed dated 22.01.1915, executed between him and his brothers.

9. The plaintiffs contended that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and that upon making a demand for partition and separate possession of their respective shares, the defendants failed to comply, thereby necessitating the institution of the present suit seeking partition and separate possession.

10. In their written statement, the defendants contended that they had conducted the marriages of the plaintiffs using both the income derived from the family properties and their personal earnings. They further asserted that the plaintiffs had relinquished their shares in the suit schedule properties after the demise of their father, Durai Pandiyan.

11. It was also pleaded that the defendants and their brother Poolidurai had been in exclusive enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and that after the death of Poolidurai in 2009, the defendants alone have continued to enjoy the said properties, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs.

12. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:-

''(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition, for 1/4 share in the plaint first and second schedule properties, with metes and bounds?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have lost their right by ouster? (iii) What are the other reliefs plaintiffs are entitled to?'