IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 03.03.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM A.S.No.172 of 2019

1.Lakshmamma

2.Ramachandra Reddy

3.Gopal Reddy

4.Krishna Reddy ... Appellants Vs.

1.Shanthamma

2.Saraswathamma

3.Suseelamma

4.Rajamma

5.Puttamma @ Mallamma

6.Anusuyamma ... Respondents PRAYER : First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 r/w under Order 41 Rule 21 of CPC against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.6 of 2016 dated

23.11.2018 on the file of the Additional District Court, Hosur.

For Appellant ... Ms.V.Srimathi For Respondent ... Mr.R.Poornima Nos.1 to 4 & 6 Respondent No.5 ... Notice served No appearance

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 23.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District Court, Hosur, the defendants have preferred the first appeal.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3.Suit for partition and mesne profits.

4.The defendants in O.S.No.6 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Court, Hosur, are the appellants herein and the respondents are the plaintiffs therein.

5.The plaintiffs' case is as follows:

The suit properties are ancestral properties of Bodi Reddy. The first defendant is the wife of Bodi Reddy. The plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 are children of Bodi Reddy. Bodi Reddy died on 12.11.2006 leaving his wife the first defendant Lakshmamma and his children viz., the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 and they had succeeded to the suit properties. They are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs have become coparceners along with their brothers the defendants 2 to 4 in view of the Hindu Succession Amended Act 39/2005. Therefore, the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 66/100 shares. The defendants 2 to 4 jointly are entitled to 33/100 shares in the suit properties. Since the defendants were not coming for partition, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition to claim shares as stated above for passing preliminary decree and thus, pleaded to allow the suit. 6.The defendants contested the suit and filed a written statement and they admitted the relationship between the parties and denied the allegations contained in the plaint. Further contended that all the plaintiffs got married prior to 1985. Therefore, they are not entitled for benefit under the Act 1/1990 or Act 39/2005. During the lifetime of their father Bodi Reddy, there was an oral partition among the father and his sons viz., the defendants 2 to 4 and the defendants 2 to 4 were given lands in Ulimangalam Village. Their father Bodi Reddy retained the lands at Maradanapalli and also at Kasi Agraharam Village. Since there was an oral partition, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition and thus, pleaded to dismiss the suit.

7.The trial Court carefully perused the above pleadings and framed the following issues for consideration;

1.,e;J thhpRhpik jpUj;jr; rl;lk; 39-2005 thjpfspd;

tHf;fpw;F bghUe;Jkh>

2/tha;bkhHp ghfg;gphptpid Vw;gl;Ltpl;ljhf gpujpthjpfs;

TwtJ rhpah>

3/khuz;lg;gs;sp fpuhk r/vz;/240-3V brhj;J jtwhf me;j tHf;fpy; nrhf; ;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>

4/thjpfs; jhth brhj;Jf;fspy; Tl;L RthjPdj;jpy;

cs;shh;fsh>

5/brYj;jpa[s;s ePjpkd;wf; fl;lzk; rhpahdjh>

6/gpuhjpy; nfhhpa[s;sgo thjpfSf;F ghfg;gphptpid kw;Wk; ,ju ghpfhu';fs; fpilf;fj;jf;fjh>

7/ntW vd;d ghpfhuk;>

8.On the side of the plaintiffs, one witness was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. On the side of the Defendants, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and Exs.B1 to Ex.B12 were marked.

9.On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved by this judgement and decree, the defendants preferred the appeal before this Court.

10.The points for consideration before this Court are, i). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary decree as prayed for and entitled to

66/100 shares?

ii). Whether the oral partition pleaded b