In partition suits, valid claims cannot be established without challenging associated settlement and sale deeds; failure to address these undermines the entitlement to partition.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. A.S.No.448 of 2002 arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.250 of 2015, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. This appeal is at the instance of the 1^st defendant, challenging the decree of the trial Court.

2. A.S.No.496 of 2002 is at the instance of the legal representatives of the plaintiff in the very same suit, non-suiting the plaintiff to the relief of partition and permanent injunction. Thus, it can be seen that the 1^st defendant was sailing with the plaintiff before the trial Court and hence, he is also aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for partition.

3. I have heard Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.448 of 2022 and 1^st respondent in A.S.No.496 of 2022; Mr.S.Anbu Raja, learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.496 of 2022 and respondents 1 to 3 in A.S.No.448 of 2022; Ms.G.Sumithra, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent in A.S.No.448 of 2022 and 2^nd respondent in A.S.No.496 of 2022; Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent in A.S.No.448 of 2022 and 3^rd respondent in A.S.No.496 of 2022 and Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 6 and 7 in A.S.No.448 of 2022 and the respondents 4 and 5 in A.S.No.496 of 2022.

4. Pleadings:

The plaint in brief:

(a) The suit property was originally belonging to the plaintiff's father, C.Raghavan. It was his absolute property, he having purchased the same out of his self acquisition, on 15.03.1975. The plaintiff's father put up construction of a house and was in enjoyment as absolute owner, till his demise. The 1^st defendant is the son and the 2^nd defendant is the daughter of the said late C.Raghavan, who died intestate on 12.12.1995. On the date of demise of C.Raghavan, his wife Mohana, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 succeeded to his interest. Subsequently, his wife Mohana died intestate on 18.05.2012. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the house. Being a co-sharer, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3^rd share over the suit property.

(b) The 2^nd defendant was given in marriage in the year 1993. Her marriage was not a happy marriage and hence, she came to Avadi and lived with her mother in the suit property. She was very much attached with the plaintiff's mother and she lived with the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. For convenient enjoyment, the plaintiff, in January 2015, requested the defendants 1 and 2 for an amicable partition. The defendants 1 and 2 denied the share of the plaintiff. This necessitated the plaintiff to apply for Encumbrance Certificate on 26.10.2015. The plaintiff came to know that the 2^nd defendant had sold the suit property to the 3^rd defendant, without any independent right to deal with the property. Earlier on 30.06.2010, the 2^nd defendant, misusing the innocence and gullibility of her mother, created a settlement deed in her favour, based on which, she has alienated the property in 2015. The mother never disclosed the factum of the settlement deed to the plaintiff or the 1^st defendant. The document is the handy work of the 2^nd defendant and it is a void document. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 3^rd defendant, taking advantage of the sale in his favour, is attempting to alienate the suit property. An attempt was also made on 03.12.2025, which has been resisted with hue and cry by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also given his objections to the 4^th defendant, the Sub Registrar concerned. The plaintif