In title suits, non-joinder of party allotted entire disputed property via partition renders declaration relief inappropriate; courts must correctly identify properties using boundaries/documents before adjudication; remand for impleadment and fresh trial justified on misidentification.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakkam in O.S.No.98 of 2010 dated 29.07.2013.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S. No.98 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam to declare the title of the plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanent injunction and to declare the settlement deed executed in respect of the suit property as null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.79 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Maduranthakam and the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

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

The plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and she purchased the property by way of registered sale deed dated 19.04.1998 from Balakrishna Reddiyar, Kuppammal and Ramabai. On and from the date of sale itself she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The vendor Balakrishna Reddiyar executed a registered settlement deed dated 11.05.1982 to Kuppammal and Ramabai, therefore the plaintiff purchased the properties from the said Balakrishnan, Kuppammal and Ramabai. The mother of vendor Balakrishna reddiyar got the property by way of oral partition reduced into by way of coor chit. Through the said partition, E schedule was allotted to Balammal in which the first defendant father was an attestor. Later there was a partition between the first defendant and his brothers through partition deed dated 25.10.1984. In the said partition deed the S.No.75/1 was mentioned as western boundary of Narayanasamy who belongs to plaintiff’s vagaira, therefore the defendants estopped from questioning the right of the title of the plaintiff. Thereafter when the plaintiff applied for Encumbrance Certificate on 04.01.2010 it was seen that the settlement deed dated 27.05.2009 in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant and settlement in favour of the defendants 3 to 4 by the second respondent were created and also sale deeds were created by the second defendant in favour of the defendants 5 and 6 and the said documents are void documents. The first defendant also got patta and the plaintiff is taking steps to get patta in her name. By creation of the above said documents the defendants are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the property, therefore the plaintiff filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of title over the property.

4. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:

The suit is not maintainable and all the allegations levelled in the plaint are denied. The plaintiff are put to strict proof of the allegations levelled in the plaint,. The sale deed dated 01.04.1994 and the alleged settlement deed dated 11.05.1982 are not admitted by the defendants. The alleged oral partition and the subsequent coor chit are denied by the defendants. The alleged partition deed dated 25.10.1985 is also not admitted by the defendants. Originally the suit property an extent of 52 cent in dry land SF No.75/1 along with other properties were purchas