A stranger-purchaser of a share in an undivided family dwelling house is barred from joint possession under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. Remaining co-sharers possess a pre-emptive right under Section 4 of the Partition Act to purchase the outsider's interest at a court-determined valuation.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The Suit in C.S.No.251 of 2023 has been filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs.

2. The Suit in C.S.No.10 of 2024 has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of partition to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit property and to allot 2/3rd share over the suit property and for appointing Advocate commissioner to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds to allot 2/3rd share over the suit properties and for costs.

3. The joint trial was conducted in both the suits, thereby both the suits have been taken up together and disposed of through Common Judgment.

4. The case of the plaintiff in C.S.No.251 of 2023 is as follows:-

4.1. The suit property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff through sale deed dated 27.03.1942 and the plaintiff has two elder brothers, namely, V.Chandamouli and Dr.V.Venkataraman and the 2^nd defendant is the wife of late V.Chandramouli and the defendants 3 and 4 are his children and 5 and 6 defendants are the children of Dr.V.Venkataraman. The mother of the plaintiff executed a Will bequeathing the property to her three sons equally restricting the right of alienation during their life time and after their life time, to her grandchildren. The said Will is available with the 2^nd defendant and after the demise of plaintiff’s mother in the year 1993, the plaintiff and his brother entered into an oral arrangement, whereby the plaintiff occupied central portion of the first floor, while other two brothers occupied the ground floor and the western portion of the first floor. The three sons, who inherited the property to implement the desire of their mother entered into oral arrangement following the wishes of their mother, resided in the same property till the demise of the two elder brothers, namely, Chandramouli and Dr.V.Venkataraman, on 22.12.2015 and on 21.12.2019 respectively. The suit property comprises of independent house with ground floor portion and first floor portion completely residential. The electric meter, motor for pumping water and the car parking is situated in the common place in the ground floor meant for access for all the three brothers, who were residing in the property. There is no dispute that the suit property was a joint family property occupied by the sons of Mrs.Muthulakshmi and Dr.Vaidyanathan.

4.2. The children of the plaintiff’s, late brothers, over the due course of time had settled outside Chennai either due to marriage or due to their professional avocations. After demise of plaintiff’s brothers, their legal heirs were primarily living outside the suit premises, however, continuing to occupy the property, as it was by their father. While so, the legal heirs of the plaintiff’s brothers had issued a legal notice dated 30.12.2020 seeking partition of the property by metes and bounds and the reply was issued by the plaintiff on 01.11.2021 denying the same and also brining to notice the oral family arrangement entered into in the year 1994 by the plaintiff and two brothers. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 6 never filed any suit for partition after the lapse of almost three years. Later, the plaintiff came to know that by way of the sale deed dated 01.11.