A formal partition deed and established individual possession negate claims of joint ownership, and mere joint use does not imply shared ownership unless accompanied by clear legal partitions.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.721 of 2022, before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mettur, is the appellant. The plaintiff had sought for the relief of partition of his alleged half share in the suit properties, by metes and bounds.

2.The facts, set out in the plaint in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. They had entered into a partition deed on 30.04.1984 amongst themselves and their father and two other brothers. In the said partition deed, one item of properties, namely schedule 'C' thereto was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and similarly, schedule 'E' was allotted to the share of the defendant. The properties, which were forming part of the said 'C' and 'E' schedules were situate in Veerakkal village. The properties in Thoramangalam village, being the suit properties, stood jointly allotted to both the plaintiff and the defendant, claiming that the plaintiff and the defendant have been in joint cultivation of the said lands in Thoramangalam village and that when the plaintiff demanded for partition, the defendant attempted to alienate his half share and despite mediation talks initiated, the defendant did not come forward for giving the plaintiff his due half share and under such circumstances, the plaintiff approached the Court seeking partition.

3.The facts, set out in the written statement in brief, are as follows:

The partition deed dated 30.04.1984 was complete and there was no property set apart for common enjoyment as alleged. The suit is bad for non- joinder of other parties to the partition deed and also non-inclusion of the properties that were purchased in the name of the plaintiff. The partition deed dated 30.04.1984 has been given effect to by metes and bounds and the plaintiff and the defendant are in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The plaintiff, in fact, took steps for subdivision and the lands have also been sub-divided and separate pattas have been issued and pursuant to the same, both the plaintiff and the defendant have been paying tax to the Government in their individual names. The plaintiff himself availed a loan from Thoramangalam Cooperative Society and State Bank of India, Jalakandapuram Branch, evidencing separate possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's share in the suit properties. The defendant has invested huge monies in developing the lands allotted to his share and he has developed coconut groves. As the defendant did not have any male issues, the plaintiff started attempting to pressurize the defendant to sell the properties to him and since the defendant refused, the plaintiff has been having a grudge and thereby started interfering with the defendant's peaceful possession and enjoyment, which necessitated the defendant to file O.S.No.181 of 2021 to protect his possession. The defendant therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.Issues framed by the trial Court:

The Trial Court, considering the pleadings available, framed the following issues:

i. Whether suit property along has been kept in common for enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant?

ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the suit property?

iii. Whether the entire property belong to the plaintiff and defendant partitioned including the suit properties among the plaintiff and defendant?

iv. Whether the suit is hit by partial partition? v. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

vi. Whether the suit property fell to the share of the defendant in the oral partition?

vii. To what other reliefs?

5.Witnesses examined and exhibits marked before the Trial Court:

During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff exa