The court ruled that joint family properties remain undivided until a final decree is issued, allowing for claims even if previously partitioned properties are involved.

JUDGMENT

The second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Principal District Judge, Karur in A.S.No.7 of 1999, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai in O.S.No.9 of 1999.

2.The Appellants herein are defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 and first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the second defendant in O.S.No.9 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kulithalai. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of his undivided 1/3^rd share in 'A' schedule properties and thereby, seeking partition of his share to extend to 7/24 by metes and bounds in 'B' schedule properties, for accounting in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and for declaration in respect of 'C' schedule properties as against defendants 1 and 3 to 5 and for consequential reliefs.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are described as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

4. The contents of the plaint in brief, are as follows :

(i) One Ramalingam Pillai, who is the son of Subramania Pillai, had two wives viz., Dhanabhakkiam and Manoranjitham. The plaintiff – Kalyana Subramanian and the second defendant – Mohanambal are son and daughter of Ramalingam Pillai and Dhanabhakkiam. The said Dhanabhakkiam died when the plaintiff was four years old. Thereafter, the said Ramalingam Pillai married one Manoranjitham and they have two sons and one daughter viz., Baskaran/3^rd defendant, Kumar/4^th defendant and Hemalatha/5^th defendant. One Raju/6^th defendant is the close associate of defendants 3 and 4 and was given up in the suit.

(ii) The said Ramalingam Pillai died intestate as a divided member on 19.02.1995 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 as his surviving legal heirs. During the life-time of the said Ramalingam Pillai, he himself and his sons had constituted an undivided Hindu Joint Family and they divided their properties, by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 18.03.1993. In the said partition deed, subject to certain conditions, the said Ramalingam Pillai was allotted 'A' schedule properties, the plaintiff was allotted 'B' schedule properties, 3^rd defendant was allotted 'C' schedule properties and 4^th defendant was allotted 'D' schedule properties mentioned in the partition deed. Further, all the sharers had the right to use the cart track, which is existing on the Western portion of S.F.No.554/2, for their effective enjoyment of their respective shares.

(iii) In the said partition, the properties described in 'A' schedule, were allotted to Ramalingam Pillai to enjoy till his lifetime without any right of alienation. After his demise, 'A' schedule properties were to be divided among his three sons viz., the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. The first plot of items I, II and III described in the partition deed in 'A' schedule properties are with an extent of 0.18 cents. In the said plot, there is a family house, which is occupied by the members of the family. The said Ramalingam Pillai, the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 have clearly agreed to divide the said house property into 3 equal shares after the life-time of Ramalingam Pillai, between the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. Therefore, the said house property was not included in the partition deed. This oral agreement is fully known to all the sharers. Even at the time of partition, Ramalingam Pillai directed the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 to amicably divide the said house property into 3 shares, after his life-time. As such, the lower portion with an extent of 0.6 cents was allotted to the plaintiff, the middle portion with an extent of 0.6 cen