A partition deed long acted upon by all parties through possession and alienation is binding and cannot be reopened by descendants, especially when the original parties to the partition accepted the arrangement and failed to challenge it within a reasonable period after attaining majority.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2010 passed in O.S.No.15 of 2004.

PRAYER:- First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgement and decree dated 11.01.2010 made in O.S.No.15 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

No Appearance for RR4,7 & 10

RR1 & R5 – Died

No Appearance for R3 (Served)

Not Ready in Notice RR6 & 8

2. The Plaintiffs are the grandchildren of the 1st defendant and the children of the 3rd defendant. The 5th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the 1st defendant, and Defendants 6 to 8 are the daughters of the 1st defendant. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Mr. Kannu Chettiar and his wife, Mrs. Rathinambal, had seven children including the 1st defendant. The said Mr. Kannu Chettiar died on 10.09.1963, and within a few days thereafter, a partition was effected among his wife Mrs. Rathinambal and all their seven children in respect of the joint family properties. Under the said partition, the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ therein were given to Mrs. Rathinambal for her lifetime and after her lifetime, the same were to devolve upon and be enjoyed exclusively by the 1st defendant and his two brothers.

3. It is submitted that the 1st defendant acquired certain properties as ancestral properties under the partition and had subsequently alienated some of those properties, while the remaining properties are described in Schedule ‘C’. Further out of the income derived from the aforesaid properties, the first defendant had purchased certain other properties, which are described in Schedule ‘D’. It is further submitted that the movable properties belonging to the joint family are described in Schedules ‘E’ and ‘F’. According to the plaintiffs, the properties described in Schedules ‘C’ to ‘F’ are joint family properties belonging to Defendants 1 to 4, and therefore the plaintiffs are also entitled to a share therein. The plaintiffs aver that the 1st defendant with an intention to defraud Defendants 2 to 4 and the other family members, had falsely created and fabricated a partition deed dated 17.04.1970 among himself and his children. According to the plaintiffs, under the said alleged partition deed, the shares were not allotted equally among all the parties.

4. It is averred that under the aforesaid partition deed, the 1st defendant had allotted the Schedule ‘A’ properties to himself and the properties under Schedules ‘B’ to ‘G’ to his children, namely Defendants 2 to 4 and Defendants 6 to 8. However, since Defendants 6 to 8 had been married prior to the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1989, they were not entitled to any share in the joint family properties. It is further averred that, though certain properties had been allotted to Defendants 2 to 4 and Defendants 6 to 8 under the said partition deed, the same were never enjoyed by them. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs came to know about the said partition deed only in November 2000. The plaintiffs further contend that Defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/4th share in the properties described under Schedules ‘C’ to ‘F’, and that the other defendants have no share therein. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to 2/12th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking part