Partition suits require all necessary parties to be included for a valid claim.

(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.52 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram have filed the present first appeal challenging the dismissal of their suit for partition and separate possession.

(A).The plaint averments are as follows:

2.The suit schedule properties, namely Survey No.47/1B and 47/2 originally belonged to one Karudaichi Konar, Son of Seeni Konar as his ancestral properties. The said Karudaichi Konar had four sons namely Ramu Konar, Kayambu Konar, Kalimuthu Konar and Kuppu Konar. After the death of their father, four brothers have orally partitioned the ancestral properties. In the said partition, 25 cents in Survey No.47/1B and 22 cents in Survey No. 47/2 were allotted to Ramu Konar. As far as Survey No.47/2 is concerned, a joint patta stands in the name of the Ramu Konar and his uncles Seeni Konar and Aandi Konar who are the brothers of Karudaichi Konar.

3.It is further contended in the plaint that after the death of Ramu Konar, the properties of the wife of Ramu Konar were divided among the daughters of Ramu Konar. The properties of Ramu Konar were jointly allotted in favour of the third plaintiff and the first defendant who are the sons of Ramu Konar. Out of 25 cents in Survey No.45/1B, an extent of 5 cents was acquired for widening of the road.

4.It is further contended in the plaint that out of 20 cents in Survey No.

47/1B, an extent of 12 cents and 9 cents in Survey No.47/2 were sold by the third defendant in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 by way of registered document dated 26.03.2009. However, the first defendant who is the brother of the third plaintiff claiming that the entire extent of 47/1B belongs to him, had gifted the said property in favour of his wife, second defendant by way of a registered settlement deed by a document dated 24.11.2012. Since it has become difficult to enjoy the properties as joint properties, the present suit has been filed.

(B).Summary of the written statement of the first defendant is as follows:

5.The suit schedule properties are admittedly ancestral properties of Karudaichi Konar, Son of Seeni Konar. The defendants had also admitted that Karudaichi Konar died leaving behind his four sons namely Ramu Konar, Kayambu Konar, Kalimuthu Konar and Kuppu Konar. However, the averments that after the death of Ramu Konar, there was an oral partition and the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Ramu Konar were denied.

6.In the written statement, it is further contended that as far as Survey No.47/2 is concerned, so far it has not been partitioned and even as on date of filing of the suit, a joint patta stands in the name of his uncle another Ramu Konar and Aandi Konar. It was further contended that several properties were allotted to the share of Ramu Konar and those properties have not been included in the suit schedule properties and hence, the suit is bad for partial partition.

7.It is further contended in the written statement that Ramu Konar had executed a registered Will dated 14.08.1989. In the said Will, the suit Survey No.47/1B has been allotted to the daughter of Ramu Konar. Therefore, the third plaintiff does not have any right whatsoever to execute a Will in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 with regard to Survey No.47/1B. A portion of Survey No.47/1B was allotted to the first defendant under the said Will. He had executed a registered settlement in favour of his wife the second defendant by way of sale deed dated 06.10.2008. In such circumstances, the sale deed executed by the third plaintiff in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of both the suit schedule properties are not valid in the eye of law.

8.It is further contended in the written