A suit for partition filed after the limitation period is barred; knowledge of exclusion triggers the 12-year limit under the Limitation Act. Ancestral property cannot be alienated unilaterally by a male ancestor.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The defendants 6, 7 and 8 in O.S. No.141 of 2019 are the LRs of the deceased first defendant and the appellants in A.S. No.667 of 2024. The appellants in A.S. No.670 of 2024 are the defendants 2 to 4 and 10 in O.S. No.40 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri. Both the suits were jointly tried and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, by common judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024.

2. Pleadings in the plaint in O.S. No.40 of 2018:

(i) The suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff and the first defendant's grandfather Ponnusamy and, after his death, his wife Rajathiammal and sons Subramanian, Kullan @ Sachidhanandham (hereinafter referred to as Kullan), Vajjirvelu and Arumugam entered into a partition on 05.03.1977, in and by which the suit properties were allotted to Kullan. He enjoyed the same along with his wife Meenakshiammal, son-plaintiff and daughter – first defendant. The father Kullan, from the income derived from the joint family properties, performed the marriage of the first defendant with his brother-in-law in a grand function. The first defendant, after her marriage, lived in Achalvaid and thereafter in Gudiyatham. The plaintiff was in enjoyment of the suit properties along with his father and resided in the ancestral home with his parents.

(ii) The plaintiff was employed as a driver in a private bus company and he applied the income for the development of the suit properties. The first defendant requested the plaintiff and the parents to permit her to reside in the ancestral house, stating that her husband did not have sufficient income. The first defendant was therefore permitted to reside in the ancestral house. There was a difference of opinion between the father and mother with regard to housing the first defendant and her family in the ancestral home. Because of this, the father left his wife and constructed an independent house on temple land and stayed there for about 15 years. The plaintiff alone took care of his father until his demise in 2007.

(iii) The first defendant's husband died in 2008. Only because of employment, the plaintiff went to Harur and stayed there in a rented house. Mother Meenakshiammal died in the year 2001. The plaintiff did agriculture and shared the income with his father until his demise, i.e., on 08.08.2007.

(iv) Neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant have any individual right over the suit properties as they are joint family properties. The first defendant filed O.S. No.161 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur, claiming that the suit properties belong to her, in view of the settlement deed dated 12.04.2002, executed by her father. Such settlement deed is not valid and the same was created by the first defendant and has not come into effect. The suit also ended in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed a suit in O.S. No.27 of 2018 for permanent injunction, which is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur. On obtaining an encumbrance certificate, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had executed a sale deed on 10.04.2018 in favour of her son, the second defendant, and the said document is unenforceable. The subsequent sale deed dated 10.04.2018 executed by the fourth defendant in favour of the fifth defendant is also invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. The first defendant had no right to execute any documents in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiff and the first defendant are each entitled to half s