Judgment :- The unsuccessful second defendant is the appellant in this appeal. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit property by metes and bounds. The 1st appellant as well as respondents 2 to 7 resisted the suit on various grounds. The learned Trial Judge, namely, the District Munsif, Sholinghur, dismissed the suit and the first respondent, aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial court, preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.17 of 1992 before the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. The learned Subordinate Judge, having analysed the evidence on record, found that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. Hence, the first appeal was allowed setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and the decree for partition as prayed for was passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 3. The contentions of the first respondent/plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:- (a) The properties in question originally belonged to Kothandapattu Pillai, who is the father of the defendants 1 and 2 and the deceased Shanmuga Pillai. The 3rd defendant is the daughter and the 7th defendant is the wife of the said Kothandapattu Pillai. The said Shanmuga Pillai died about 15 years ago leaving behind him the plaintiff as his only heir. The said Kothandapattu Pillai died a few years ago. After their death, the plaintiff and defendants are in possession of specific portions of the suit properties thereby raising crops in the respective portions of the suit properties. The plaintiff is entitled to a common 1/5th share while the defendants 1 to 3 and 7th defendant are each entitled to a common 1/5th share in the suit properties and they are in joint possession of the suit properties. (b) While so, even though on 25.8.1984 the plaintiff demanded the defendants 1 to 3 and 7 to divide the suit properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to her as there was misunderstanding between them, they refused to have an amicable partition of the suit properties thereby denying the plaintiff's legitimate share in the suit properties. In the meantime, the defendants colluded together and created some documents purporting to be the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties without any consideration in favour of the defendants 4 and 5, which they are not entitled. The entire suit properties are liable to be divided by the metes and bounds. Hence, the suit. 4. The 1st appellant/2nd defendant filed the written statement with the following contentions:- (a) The suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Kothandapattu Pillai and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendants 1 and 2 and deceased Shanmuga Pillai were the sons of Kothandapattu Pillai. The said Shanmuga Pillai, husband of the plaintiff died 18 years ago, before Kothandapattu Pillai and not as mentioned in the plaint. He never enjoyed the suit properties. Immediately after death of Shanmuga Pillai, within few months, plaintiff went to her parents house. The deceased Kothandapattu Pillai, sympathetically gave the plaintiff Rs.3,000/- for her living. For the past 17 years, she was living with her parents. The plaintiff has no right and title over the suit properties. (b) The plaintiff never demanded for a division of the suit properties. The plaintiff is colluding with the first defendant and due to instigation of the first defendant the suit has been filed. The defendants 1 and 2 are equally enjoying specific portions in the suit properties for the past 13 years without any objection by anybody. Under the registered sale deed dated 19.7.1984, the first defendant has sold some portions of the properties to the second defendant and to one Thayarammal as per registered Sale deed dated 17.11.1976. (c) There is no cause of action for the suit. The wife of the deceased Kothandapattu Pillai has got every right and share in the suit properties. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The averments in the written statement filed by the 7th seventh defendant are briefly as follows:- (a) The properties described in item No.6 of the plaint are now enjoyed by one Palani and Umapathy, but they are not added as necessary parties in the suit. In the same way, item Nos.4 and 5 were sold to one Kannammal, wife of Appadurai who has also not been added as a party to the suit. In the same way, item Nos.4 and 5 were sold to one Kannammal, wife of Appadurai who has also not been added as a party to the suit. Items 12, 13 and 14 do not belong to Kothandapattu Pillai, the father-in-law of the plaintiff, but the same are included unnecessarily in the plaint schedule. (b) The plaintiff has omitted to add the ancestral properties of Kothandapattu Pillai. The first defendant on behalf of his minor children also sold the properties under the registered sale deed dated 10.7.1975 to one Gadikachala Reddy, who in turn sold the said property to one Sivanurmunusamy Pillai under the registered sale deed dated 19.04.1984. The plaintiff has omitted the same in the suit. In the same way, the properties sold to other persons have not been added as suit properties. Some of the suit properties are now in the possession of third parties who have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and properties. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed. 6. (a) The trial court framed the following issues on the basis of the above pleadings:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of 1/4th share in the suit properties? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (4) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file this suit? (5) Whether the court fee paid is correct? (6) To what relief if any is the plaintiff is entitled? (b) The additional issues framed on 5.1.1990 are as follows:- (1) Whether the defendants 2 and 7 have acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession? (2) Whether the suit for partition is maintainable in law? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (c) The additional issue framed on 17.9.1990 is whether the suit is barred by res judicata. 7. It was held under issue No.1 that since there had been earlier partition, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of partition again in respect of the suit properties. Similarly, the relief of permanent injunction was also negatived and issue No.2 was answered against the plaintiff and on issue No.4, a similar finding was rendered that there was no cause of action for the suit. Similarly, the relief of permanent injunction was also negatived and issue No.2 was answered against the plaintiff and on issue No.4, a similar finding was rendered that there was no cause of action for the suit. On issue No.5, it was held that the plaintiff valued the suit properly for the purpose of court-fee. On the additional issue framed on 5.1.1990, the trial Court held that the defendants 2 and 7 have not acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession. Similarly, on the additional issue No.2, it was held that the suit is not bad for partial partition. On additional issue No.3, it was found that the suit was not barred by limitation and the issue No.3 was answered in favour of the plaintiff and ultimately dismissed the suit. 8. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, the learned Subordinate Judge framed the following points for consideration:- (1) Whether the application in I.A.No.170 of 1992 has to be ordered as prayed for? (2) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit properties? (3) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? (4) Whether the suit is maintainable in law? (5) Whether the defendants 2 and 7 have acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession? (6) Whether the appeal has to be allowed as prayed for? 9. After considering the recorded evidence and the arguments of both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge firstly held that the application in I.A.No.170 of 1992 is not maintainable and hence dismissed the same. Similarly, on point No.2, he rendered a finding that since the defendants failed to prove the earlier partition as alleged by them, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of 1/5th share in the suit properties. Similarly, he arrived at the finding in respect of point 4 and 5 that the suit is maintainable in law and that the defendants 2 and 7 have not acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession. In respect of point No.1, the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and therefore ultimately found on point No.6 that the appeal has to be allowed as prayed for. Hence, the Second Appeal. 10. In respect of point No.1, the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and therefore ultimately found on point No.6 that the appeal has to be allowed as prayed for. Hence, the Second Appeal. 10. Heard Mr.Y.K. Rajagopal, the counsel for the appellants and Mr.Fazulludin, the counsel for the first respondent. 11. The following contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to substantiate the claim in the Second Appeal:- The lower appellate Court failed to note that though the plaintiff has stated that she is in possession of certain lands, she has not identified the portion under her occupation. Similarly, the lower appellate court erred in rendering a finding that the suit properties are yet to be divided, when the plaintiff herself pleaded and admitted in the evidence that the suit properties were divided and enjoyed separately. Similarly, the lower appellate Court failed to note that the plaintiff's claim was already settled as soon as she lost her husband. In view of the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3, panchayatdars in whose presence the claim of the plaintiff was settled, the doctrine of estoppel comes into play. The lower appellate court was not correct in rejecting the claim of the defendants that the suit properties were partitioned by their father when he was alive. The lower appellate court has also failed to note that the suit has to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. Further, item Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the suit properties are not the properties belonging to the family of Kothandapattu Pillai and some of the ancestral properties were not included in the suit. The lower appellate court also erred in rejecting the claim of adverse possession when the same was pleaded and proved by the defendants. 12. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law had been formulated on 19.7.1993 for consideration:- "(i) Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in giving a finding that the suit properties are yet to be divided, when the plaintiff herself has deposed as P.W.1 that the suit properties were divided and enjoyed separately. (ii) Whether granting a decree for permanent injunction is right, when the parties are co-owners." 13. (ii) Whether granting a decree for permanent injunction is right, when the parties are co-owners." 13. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this court, at the outset, to the averments in the plaint in paragraph 4 to the effect that the parties to the suit were having possession and enjoyment of specific shares in the suit properties for number of years for the sake of convenience and by raising crops in the respective portion of the properties in their possession. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff, in support of such pleadings and argued that since there had been a partition of the suit properties among the co-owners, the suit filed by the first respondent is misconceived. Hence, he has urged that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 14. In answer to such contention, the learned counsel for the first respondent has argued and in my opinion rightly that possession and enjoyment of a specific share by a co-owner for the sake of convenience without any deed of partition entered into between the parties in accordance with law cannot be considered as complete partition amongst the co-owners of the joint family properties by metes and bounds and therefore, he has urged that unless the earlier partition is supported by a registered partition deed, however long the possession by the co-owners may be, it cannot amount to partition of the properties by metes and bounds by a process known to law. In this context, he has cited the decision rendered by this Court in P. KALIAPPA GOUNDER vs. MUTHUSWAMI MUDALIAR (AIR 1987 MADRAS 24) in support of such proposition. It is relevant to quote the following ratio laid down in the said decision, to come to the proper conclusion in this appeal:- "The fact of enjoyment of specified portions or making improvements over such portions and of obtaining loans will not lead to the inference that there was a severance of the joint ownership and it was converted into ownership in severalty and in specie in the eye of law." 15. In view of the above dictum of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I have no hesitation in accepting the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the first respondent in this respect. It follows necessarily that in this case also, it cannot be held that there had been a severance in status of the joint family by separate enjoyment of specific portions of the suit properties amongst the co-owners for the sake of convenience. 16. Thus, this court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge and the appeal is therefore dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.