A party must prove joint ownership and the existence of a Kartha for partition claims; individual ownership negates claims of joint family property.

JUDGMENT :

C.V.Karthikeyan, J.

The first, second and fourth defendants in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court at Villupuram have filed A.S.No.118 of 2017.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit have filed Cross Objection No.56 of 2017.

3. The suit O.S.No.23 of 2008 had been filed by Vasantha @Seethalakshmi and also by Dr.Lalitha @ Sumathi, who is the widow of the brother of the first plaintiff , against the brother Mohanraj and Rajendiran, who were the second and fourth defendants, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties by calling upon the Court to divide the said property into four equal parts and allot two of the said parts to the plaintiffs.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and her legal representatives have been brought on record as fourth to eighth plaintiffs.

5. The first defendant also died. During the pendency of the appeal, the fourth defendant Rajendiran, one of the brothers died.

6. It is claimed that he had left behind a Will bequeathing his share to the second defendant Mohanraj, who is the son of the first defendant.

7. The suit had been laid on the premise that the properties listed in the schedule were the properties of Ramasamy and Vengulakshmi, parents of the first plaintiff, first defendant and fourth defendant and the parents-in-law of the second plaintiff. It had been contended that the properties, which belonged to the father Ramasamy devolved on to his children, namely, one daughter and three sons on his death intestate. With respect to the “A” schedule property, it had been contended that the property originally belonged to one Krishnasamy Naidu, who had executed a settlement deed in favour of Ramasamy, the father, on 14.06.1929. With respect to the “B” schedule property, it had been contended that the same has been purchased by Rangasmay on 24.04.1927. With respect to the “C” schedule property, it had been contended that the property had been purchased jointly by Ramasamy and his brother, Rangasamy, vide sale deed dated 24.04.1927. With respect to the “D” schedule property, it had been stated that it had purchased by Ramasamy on 20.01.1943. The “E” schedule property had been allotted to the share of Ramasamy through a partition deed dated 21.07.1946. The “F” schedule property was purchased by Vengulakshmi, the second wife of Ramasamy Naidu on 12.04.1961,

8. It had been further contended in the plaint that Ramasamy died in the year 1968, and his second wife Vengulakshmi had predeceased him and died in the year 1961. It was further contended that Rajendiran, the fourth defendant was deaf and dumb and could not understand the ways of life. It had been contended that since the properties were in the name of Ramasamy, all the legal heirs were entitled to equal share. In these circumstances, the suit had been laid seeking partition and separate possession.

9. The suit was primarily resisted by the first defendant Yoganathan, who is brother of the first plaintiff and brother-in-law of the second plaintiff and also the brother of the fourth defen