JUDGMENT

1.This second appeal has been preferred against the decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.20 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur, wherein the appellant has preferred the said appeal, challenging the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court/District Munsif Court, Mettur in O.S.No.24 of 2000 dated 30.08.2012.

2. The parties are referred to as per their own ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience:

3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to one Palaniappa gounder by way of a registered Sale Deed, dated 17.11.1954 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He had two wives namely, Arayee and Kolandaimmal. The said Palaniappa gounder died in the year 1986 and prior to him, in the year 1984, his wife Arayee died. The said Arayee had one son namely, Irusagounder, who died 5 years prior to the filing of the suit. The defendants 1 to 8 and 14 are the wife and children of the said Irusagounder. The plaintiff and the defendants 9 to 13 are the sons and the daughter of Kolandaiammal, the 2^nd wife of the said Palaniappa gounder. After the demise of the said Palaniappa gounder, the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Due to some dispute arisen between the parties in the joint possession, plaintiff was unable to be in joint possession of the property. Thereafter, they demanded 1/7 share of the suit property and the defendants 1 to 8 and 14 together entitled to 1/7 share in the suit property and the other defendants are each entitled to 1/7 share in the suit property. Thereafter, a request was made by the plaintiff to effect partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds and to deliver them 1/7 share of the suit property. However, the defendants are not amenable for amicable partition. Therefore, the suit was filed for partition of suit properties into 7 parts and to allot one such share i.e., 1/7 share to the plaintiff and to delivery the separate possession to the plaintiff.

The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant and adopted by the defendants 2 to 8 and 14 are as follows:

4. The defendants denied the averments of the plaint stating that the suit property was purchased by Palaniappa gounder on 17.11.1954 through registered sale deed and the said Palaniappa gounder had two wives namely Arayee and Kolandaiyammal. The said Arayee alone is the wife of Palaniappa gounder and their son is Irusagounder. The defendants 1 to 8 are the legal heirs of the Irusagounder. The said Kolandaiyammal is not a wife of the Palaniappa gounder. The defendants denied that the plaintiff and the defendants were enjoying the suit property jointly. They also denied the alleged request for partition and the panchayat dated 09.01.2000 and panchayat muchalika are false. Except Arayee, Palaniappa gounder had no other wives. One Mangaiyerkarasi was not added as party in the suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. In fact, the suit property was occupied by one Molaiya gounder, who is the father of the said Arayee. The said Arayee acquired the suit property from her father and patta also granted in favour of the Arayee in the year 1974. The said Irusagounder alone is the legal heir of the Palaniappa gounder and Arayee. The defendants 1 to 8 are the legal heirs of the said Irusagounder. The said Arayee died intestate leaving behind her husband and her son Irusagounder. After the demise of Irusagounder, the defendants 1 to 8 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants 9 to 13 have no right or title over the suit property. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit properties belonged to the Palaniappa gounder as contended by the plaintiff?

2. Whether the averments that Palaniappa gounder had two wiv