The court ruled that admissions regarding ancestral property holdings necessitate a decree for partition despite the trial court's dismissal.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been filed to to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.2014 made in O.S.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Vellore.

2. Heard Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel, represented Mr.R.Sugumaran, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. In spite of notice having been served on respondents 1 to 4, they are neither present nor represented through counsel. They are called absent and set ex parte.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that certain of the suit schedule mentioned properties are ancestral properties and from and out of the income earned from the said ancestral properties, certain properties were purchased by the first defendant as kartha of the family in his name and in the names of the second and third respondents. He would submit that as the properties are all ancestral in nature, the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 would each be entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. He was denied his rightful share in the suit schedule properties.

5. The appellant had instituted a suit for partition of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and also for an injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from creating any encumbrance over the suit schedule properties. He would submit that defendants 2 and 4 remained ex parte during the suit and the suit was contested only by the first and third defendants. He would submit that the first defendant had filed a written statement, contending that the suit schedule properties were not ancestral properties and that the properties had been purchased by him.

6. He would further submit that the first defendant had categorically admitted that various extents of land had been in possession and enjoyment of the respective parties, namely the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, in respect of the suit schedule properties. He would submit that the trial court, without considering the admission made by the appellant in his written statement, had dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant had failed to prove the suit property as ancestral property. It had further held that the suit schedule properties had been purchased in the names of defendants 1, 2 and 3 and hence not ancestral properties. He would contend that when the first defendant himself had admitted that the shareholders were enjoying the ancestral properties continuously, at least with regard to the appellant holding of certain properties and enjoying the same, he would be entitled to partition of the same. Hence, to that extent, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.

8. The trial Court had framed a solitary issue as to whether the plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, would be entitled to the relief as prayed for. Adverting to the said issue, the trial Court had categorically held that the suit schedule properties had been purchased by the first defendant and that the suit properties cannot be said to be ancestral properties for grant of the relief as sought for by the appellant.

9. However, the first defendant in his written statement, had categorically admitted that there were ancestral properties, which were in the nature of agricultural lands. He had also claimed that certain of the suit properties had been purchased by him from his self-earnings, which did not arise out of the ancestral properties. He had also categorically admitted that the respective shareholders were enjoying the prope