Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3567 (MAD)

Minor alias Karuppanna Udayar v. Lakshmi Ammal

2010-08-17

M.VENUGOPAL

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.2.1996 in A.S.No.49 of 1992 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the learned Sub-Judge, Ariyalur in the Judgment in A.S.No.49 of 1992 dated 13.2.1996 has among other things observed that “the suit properties have been allotted to the share of Ramasamy who has been in enjoyment of the same and after him, the suit properties have been in enjoyment of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and in respect of 1,2 and 3 items of the properties, the Appellant/defendant has been in enjoyment for 4 years and 2 years as a trespasser and therefore the Appellant has no right to question as to how Ramasamy and his heirs are enjoying the properties. 3. Further, the First Appellate Court has also opined that during his lifetime, Ramasamy has divided his properties into 3 shares and as per Ex.A.1, the sisters have partitioned the same and in the said partition, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has been allotted the suit property and since it is not stated that apart from three daughters Ramasamy has no other heirs after the demise of Ramasamy, his 3 daughters get these properties and accordingly, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) gets the right and the Appellant/Defendant has no right to say that as per Ex.A.1 during the lifetime of Ramasamy his daughters has no right to partition his properties” and resultantly dismissed the Appeal with costs. Also, the First Appellate Court viz., the learned Sub-Judge, Ariyalur has granted one month time to the Appellant/Defendant to hand over the possession of the suit properties. 4. Before the Trial Court 1 to 6 issues have been framed for determination. On the side of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased), witnesses P.W.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.43 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, D.W.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 have been marked. 5. 4. Before the Trial Court 1 to 6 issues have been framed for determination. On the side of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased), witnesses P.W.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.43 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, D.W.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 have been marked. 5. The Trial Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to the resultant conclusion that the suit properties have been allotted to the Plaintiff’s father-Ramasamy’s share and the suit properties have been allotted to the share of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) as per Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 and these have been proved by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and the Appellant/Defendant has not established that the suit properties have been allotted to his father’s share and later he has been in enjoyment of the same and resultantly decreed the Suit as prayed for by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased). 6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Question of Law has been framed by this Court. “Whether the Courts below were correct in granting a decree in favour of the Plaintiff on the basis of the Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973?” 7. The Contentions, Discussions and findings on Substantial Question of Law: According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the First Appellate Court has not appreciated Ex.A.10-House Kist Receipt which cannot convey a right to the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and moreover, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has not explained the reason for the execution of Ex.A.1-Partion Deed dated 12.3.1973. 8. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/Defendant that Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 clearly go to prove that Item No.1 and 2 are in possession of the Appellant/Defendant. 9. Advancing his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the First Appellate Court should not have given any credence to the documents filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) including Ex.A.2-Settlement copy dated 28.8.1990 issued by the Tahsildar. 10. Proceeding further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant contends that it is the specific case of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) that both Ramasamy Udaiyar as well as Chidambarathudaiyar have been allotted an equal share in each and every item of the properties and indeed the First Appellate Court has failed to explain as to how and why entire S.No.32/17B has been allotted to her father. 11. 11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant projects a plea that the First Appellate Court has wrongly placed the burden on the Appellant/defendant to prove whether the property has been allotted to the Appellant/Defendant in the alleged Partition Deed. 12. That part, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant contends that the First Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the Suit holding that the 15th Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has not derived any right under Ex.A.1 Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973. 13. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant is that the Appellant/Defendant has been in possession of the properties in his own right for well over the statutory period and as such prescribed title by means of Adverse possession. 14. In short, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant submits that the First Appellate Court has not taken in to account the factual and legal aspects of the matter in a proper perspective and therefore prays for allowing the Second Appeal to promote substantial cause of justice. 15. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has not come out with an extent of property and also when an oral partition is pleaded by her, then it is for her to prove her case and all the more during the lifetime of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s (deceased) father Ramasamy, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and her two sisters cannot effect the partition in respect of the properties which is not valid in the eye of law. 16. In support of the contention that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (Deceased) is to prove her case, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant cites the decision of this Court S.Ramesh Babu v. R.Bhaskar 2003 (1) CTC 345 at page 345 at page 346 wherein it is held that “Plaintiff should prove his case and cannot take advantage of weakness in case of defence.” 17. He also relies on the decision of this Court Govindarasami Naidu v. Shanmuga Nattar, 2007 (2) CTC 553, wherein it is held that “it is well settled that Plaintiff must establish/prove his case and cannot succeed automatically on weakness of Defendant’s case.” 18. He also relies on the decision of this Court Govindarasami Naidu v. Shanmuga Nattar, 2007 (2) CTC 553, wherein it is held that “it is well settled that Plaintiff must establish/prove his case and cannot succeed automatically on weakness of Defendant’s case.” 18. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant refers to the following passage under the caption “Effect for partition” from the Book of Law relating to Partition by M.N.Das at page 320 at page 321 wherein it is observed as follows: “Community of interest and unity of possession are the essential attributes of coparcenary property; and so, the true effect of partition is that each coparcener gets a specific property of the family. In other words, what happens at a partition is that in lieu of the property allotted to individual coparceners they, in substance, renounce their right in respect of the other properties; they get exclusive title to the properties allotted to them and as a consequence, they renounce their undefined right in respect of the rest of the property. The process of partition, therefore, involves the transfer of joint enjoyment of the properties by all the coparceners into an enjoyment in severalty by them of the respective properties allotted to their shares. Having regard to this basis character of joint Hindu family property, it cannot be denied that each coparcener has an antecedent title to the said property, though its extent is not determined until partition takes place. That being so, partition really means that whereas initially all the coparceners have subsisting title to the totality of the property of the family jointly, that joint title is by partition transformed into separate titles of the individual coparceners in respect of several items of properties allotted to them respectively. (Sarain v. Ajith Kumar, 1966 (1) SCA 285). If that be the true nature of partition, it would not be easy to uphold the broad contention that partition of an undivided Hindu family property must necessarily mean transfer of the property to the individual coparceners. As was observed by the Privy Council: (Girija Bai v. Sadashi, 43 IA 151) “Partition does not give him (A coparcener) a title or create a title in him; it only enables him to obtain what is his own in a definite and specific form for purposes of disposition independent of the wishes of his former co-sharers.” 19. As was observed by the Privy Council: (Girija Bai v. Sadashi, 43 IA 151) “Partition does not give him (A coparcener) a title or create a title in him; it only enables him to obtain what is his own in a definite and specific form for purposes of disposition independent of the wishes of his former co-sharers.” 19. Continuing further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant also refers to the following passage from the aforesaid Book at page 324, which runs as follows: “It is an elementary principle that in cases of partition where several persons are co-owners or co-sharers of immovable property, partition should be effected between them by giving to each his share in specie as far as practicable. The right of each sharer is to his slice of the property, not merely its money value, and it is a matter of common experience that great importance is attached in this country to the possession of a share in specie by a co-sharer of property which has belonged to the family or which has descended from an ancestor. The law gives effect to this sentiment as far as possible. “Basanta Kumar Ghosh v. Motilal Ghosh, 15 CWN 555). 20. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant that all individuals who are entitled to share in the property by inheritance are to be made as parties in a suit for partition and in this regard, the learned Counsel refers to the following passage at page 325 and 326 of the aforesaid Book under the heading “Necessary parties” which runs below: “It is necessary that all persons who are entitled to a share in the property by inheritance must be made parties to the suit for partition. It is an absolute proposition of law that when in a suit for partition of the properties various claimants have different shares, all must be made parties so that a dispute is resolved once and for all. Wherever the law of inheritance applies, either Hindu law or Mahomedan law the heirs get specified shares as laid down by these laws. (Ali Ahmad v. Sindhi Ebrahim, AIR 1983 Guj. 156 :1983 (1) 24 Guj LR 337: 1983 Guj. LH 117). Wherever the law of inheritance applies, either Hindu law or Mahomedan law the heirs get specified shares as laid down by these laws. (Ali Ahmad v. Sindhi Ebrahim, AIR 1983 Guj. 156 :1983 (1) 24 Guj LR 337: 1983 Guj. LH 117). Where a married daughter claimed partition without impleading her brothers the Supreme Court held that in the absence of the brothers, who were co-heirs and therefore co-tenants, the Suit must fail. (Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha, AIR 1965 SC 271 ). Even an intermeddler becomes a necessary party in a partition. A minor co-sharer has title to the property but because of his incapacity to contract till his majority he holds the estate and property through his legal guardian. As such if the minor dies during the pendency of the partition Suit the legal guardian remains in the same situation qua the estate, whether lawfully or unlawfully, and he represents the estate as such. (Sudama v. Jagendra, AIR 1987 Pat 239 : 1987 Pat LJR 793 (HC) (FB) : 1987 BUR 724) 21. In the Plaint, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has averred that the suit properties belonged to her and these properties originally belonged to Ponnusamy who died long ago, leaving behind him, his 3 sons viz., (1) Chidambarathudaiyar, (2) Ramasamy @ Kattathurai Udaiyar, and (3) Muthusamy Udaiyar and that the said Muthusamy expired 40 years ago in his early years without marriage and hence his 2 brothers Chidambarathudaiyar and Ramasamy Udaiyar enjoyed their ancestral property and divided them into two equal shares orally after the death of Muthusamy. 22. Further, in the Plaint it is also mentioned that ‘in the partition between Chidambaram and Ramasamy, the suit properties and some other properties have been allotted to the share of Ramasamy and being the eldest male member and Kartha of the family, the patta for some of the properties still stand in the name of Chidambarathudaiyar and the Defendant (Appellant) is the son of Chidambaram. The said Ramasamy has no male issues and his wife Nallammal predeceased him. His daughters are 1. Karuppayee @ Muntheri Ammal 2. Patturoja and 3. Lakshmi [1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased)]. During the life time of Ramasamy, the three daughters aforesaid have divided his properties into three equal shares. The said Ramasamy has no male issues and his wife Nallammal predeceased him. His daughters are 1. Karuppayee @ Muntheri Ammal 2. Patturoja and 3. Lakshmi [1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased)]. During the life time of Ramasamy, the three daughters aforesaid have divided his properties into three equal shares. They have entered into a registered Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 and in the said partition the suit properties have been allotted to the share of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased). Ramasamy expired in the year 1980. The Legal Heirs are 1. The 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased), 2. his sister Muntheri Ammal and another deceased sister’s son Shanmugasundaram. As per Hindu Succession Act, they have become the owners. Thus, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has become the absolute owner of the suit properties and she and her predecessors-in-title have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties openly, continuously and adversely for more than so may statutory periods and as such she has perfected title by adverse possession’. 23. The stand taken by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) as per the Plaint is that the Appellant/Defendant is the son of Chidambarathudaiyar, who has no right over the suit properties and his father in the partition has been allotted some other properties and due to the absence of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) on the suit and also due to the absence of adult male member in the family of Ramasamy, after his demise, the Appellant/defendant tried to give troubles and disturbance to the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and her sister. 24. The core stand of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) is that in the share of Ramasamy (her father) the Appellants/Defendant cannot lay any right. 25. The 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s (deceased) sister has filed the Suit praying for the relief of declaration and injunction on the file of learned District Munsif, Ariyalur and has obtained a Decree. 24. The core stand of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) is that in the share of Ramasamy (her father) the Appellants/Defendant cannot lay any right. 25. The 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s (deceased) sister has filed the Suit praying for the relief of declaration and injunction on the file of learned District Munsif, Ariyalur and has obtained a Decree. According to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, frustrated over this, the Appellant/Defendant has made an endeavour to trespass in to the entire properties of Ramasamy and since he is not been in a position to trespass into the properties of Muntheri Ammal, because of the pending Suit and injunction order, he has trespassed into the properties of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) viz., the suit properties, two years before and the 3rd item of the suit property i.e., the house has been rented out to one Kannammal and when she has vacated the house two years ago, the Appellant/Defendant has unauthorisedly entered into the house and he is now in possession of the same. Therefore the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has filed the present Suit seeking the relief of declaration of her title in respect of the suit properties and for a consequential relief of directing the Appellant/Defendant to hand over possession of the suit properties. 26. The Appellant/Defendant in the Written Statement has stated that the suit 1st item and 2nd item have been allotted in entirety to Chidambarathudaiyar 40 years before in the partition. The 2nd item viz., S.F. No.52/17B-0.16 cents has been in enjoyment as one block and likewise the 1st item in entirety has been enjoyed as one block along with the upper portion of the land of 1st item. In the 1st item, paddy is raised and in the 2nd item, Bamboo, Coconut and Tamarind trees are in enjoyment of the Appellant. Haystack, Dump Yard are in possession of the Appellant/Defendant. 27. In the Written Statement, the Appellant/Defendant has pleaded that the Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 is a fictitious, false document. The Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 will not give any right to the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased). Ramasamy died in the year 1980. When Ramasamy has been alive, his daughters have no right to partition the properties. The cause of action is not true. Ancestrally, the 3rd item in entirety has been allotted to Chidambaram exclusively. The tiled house has been allotted to Ramasamy, where he resided. Ramasamy died in the year 1980. When Ramasamy has been alive, his daughters have no right to partition the properties. The cause of action is not true. Ancestrally, the 3rd item in entirety has been allotted to Chidambaram exclusively. The tiled house has been allotted to Ramasamy, where he resided. The house where Ramasamy resided after his death has become dilapidated. In the 3rd item, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has no right and she has not been in enjoyment. The 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) is not entitled to claim the relief of declaration and also the relief of recovery of possession. 28. It is the evidence of PW1 [1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased)] that the suit properties are ancestral properties belonging to her grand father Ponnusamy. Her grand father has three sons viz., 1. Chidambaram 2. Ramasamy @ Kattadorai, and 3. Muthusamy and that the Muthusamy died in his young age without getting married and Chidambaram and Ramasamy have orally and equally divided the family properties of Ponnusamy and they have been in enjoyment of the same. 29. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that her father is Ramasamy and the Appellant/Defendant is the son of Chidambaram and the suit properties and other properties have been allotted to the share of her father and her parents have died and her sisters Muntheri Ammal, Patturoja and herself are the legal heirs of her father and during the lifetime of her father, they asked for dividing the properties among themselves and accordingly a Registered Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 has been executed and the suit properties are allotted to her share. 30. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that the suit properties are in her enjoyment and the chitta copy standing in the name of her father in respect of suit 1 and 2 items is Ex.A2 and Ex.A.3 is the Cultivation account for the Fasli 1387 and the 2nd item is 5 ¼ cent garden and near this item the Appellant/Defendant has his share which he has sold out and the 3rd item of property is a big house and the southern side of 3rd item belongs to the Appellant/Defendant’s family and in the 3rd item of house property, the Tax Receipts from the year 1955 to 1988 is Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.39 and in the suit house, earlier Chettiar has been residing and later one Kannammal has been residing for rent. The Appellant/Defendant has vacated the Kannammal from the house and trespassed into the property. 31. P.W.1-1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) in her cross-examination has deposed that in Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973, her father has not signed and her father has sold out the property allotted to him in the partition. 32. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that he knows 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and the Appellant/Defendant and their fathers, Chidambaram and Ramasamy have partitioned the properties before 40 years and near the 1st item Chidambarathudaiyar has 14 cents and the 2nd item 16 cents garden has been allotted to Ramasamy and Chidambarathudaiyar in lieu of this property has sold his land and he knows the 3rd item of the house and near that house, he has a house and that after partition, Chidambaram and Ramasamy have been enjoying the property separately and Ramasamy’s three daughters have partitioned the share of properties before 15 years. 33. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that the Plaintiff’s share of property has been in possession of the Appellant/Defendant for four years and it is wrong to state that the suit properties belong to Chidambaram’s share. 34. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that four years before, the Appellant/Defendant has erased the bund (Varappu) and that he does not know about the partition effected by 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and her sisters and moreover he has not signed in the Partition Deed. 35. D.W.1 (Appellant/Defendant) in his evidence has stated that Ramasamy has not enjoyed the suit properties and that Ramasamy has not been allotted the suit properties in the Partition and the suit 2nd item 16 cents in entirety has been allotted to the share of Chidambarathudaiyar and in the 16 cents, there are Coconut Trees, Velikaruvai Trees, Tamarind Trees and Bamboo Trees and he is enjoying the 2nd item of suit property by storing haystack, dumping waste materials, etc., and the 3rd item of suit property in entirety belongs to his father’s share and Ramasamy has sold out his share of property orally and by way of document and it is not correct to state that he has trespassed into the suit items of property. 36. 36. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that they have not purchased the suit items of properties and Ramasamy has been allotted the property at Alambadi at Lalgudi Taluk and he does not know the Survey number of properties allotted to Ramasamy. 37. DW2 in his evidence has deposed that the Appellant/Defendant has obtained loan from the Co-operative Society by mortgaging his properties and the loan sanction resolution in the year 1985 is Ex.B.12 and in that S.F.No.39/4 – 14 cents and 39/4B-14 cents are found and at the time of granting loan, they will not come and inspect the lands and on the basis of certificate issued by V.A.O. they will grant loan and Ex.14 and B.15 are the resolution for grant of loan during the year 1976 and 1962. 38. It is to be noted that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act speaks of general rules of succession in the case of males and the same is as follows: “8. General rules of succession in the case of males. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter: (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased, and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.” 39. A perusal of Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 between Karuppayee Ammal, Pattu Roja and the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) contain recitals to the effect that the schedule items therein have been obtained by her father and till date, they have enjoyed these properties in common and they find some inconvenience to enjoy the suit properties in common, they have partitioned the suit properties among themselves and ‘C’ schedule properties have been allotted to the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased). 40. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of Chitta bearing No.117 standing in the name of Ramasamy viz., 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s father in respect of Survey No.39/4, 0.28 cents and S.No.57/17B-16 cents. Ex.A.2-certified true copy of Chitta has been issued by the Revenue Authority. 40. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of Chitta bearing No.117 standing in the name of Ramasamy viz., 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s father in respect of Survey No.39/4, 0.28 cents and S.No.57/17B-16 cents. Ex.A.2-certified true copy of Chitta has been issued by the Revenue Authority. Ex.A.3 is Adangal Accounts in respect of S.No.39/4 and S.No.52/17-B covering 44 cents in the name of Ramasamy i.e. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) father. In short, Ex.A.2 and A.3 are the documents issued by the Revenue Authorities. The Appellant/Defendant has not produced cultivation accounts and has not proved his case as opined by this Court. 41. Just because the Appellant/Defendant has obtained loan in respect of item 1 and 2 of properties from the Agricultural Service Cooperation Society, one cannot arrive at a conclusion that he is the owner of those properties. 42. In regard to the 3rd item of house property, on the side of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.39 - House Tax Receipts have been filed. In reality, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (since deceased) has not examined the erstwhile tenant Kannammal before the Trial Court, yet the non-examination of the tenant Kannammal is not fatal to her case. On the side of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) Ex.A.43 – certified copy of Sale Deed dated 10.3.1948 has been marked before the Trial Court. A reading of the said Sale Deed shows that Chidambarathudaiyar, Son of Ponnusamy Udaiyar has sold Ayan Punja vacant land in favour of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s mother in respect of Ayan Punja Re-Survey No.24/23 for a sale consideration of Rs.200/- and from the year 1955, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and her father have remitted the House Tax Receipts and when that be the factual position, the stand taken by the Appellant/ Defendant that the 3rd item of suit property has been allotted to his father in partition is found unacceptable by this Court. 43. Merely because P.W.1 (1st Respondent/Plaintiff-since deceased) has deposed in her cross-examination that her father has sold the property allotted to her in the partition, it cannot be said by any means that she has not proved her suit claim, as opined by this Court. 43. Merely because P.W.1 (1st Respondent/Plaintiff-since deceased) has deposed in her cross-examination that her father has sold the property allotted to her in the partition, it cannot be said by any means that she has not proved her suit claim, as opined by this Court. A person against whom an admission has been proved may call upon his adversary as part of the latter’s case, to prove so much of the entire statement, correspondence or document containing or referred to in the admission, as is necessary to explain it, even though such additional part may be unfavourable to the adversary proving the admission. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.1 will have to be read in entirety as a whole and a truncated or stray admission made by her as referred to supra will not be fatal to her case, in the considered opinion of this Court and the contra plea taken on the side of the Appellant/Defendant in this regard is rejected by this Court. It is also quite possible that leaving the father Ramasamy, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (since deceased) and her sisters could have effected partition of the properties among themselves and therefore, it cannot be contended that Ex.A.1-Partition Deed is not valid since the same has been executed when the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s (since deceased) father has been alive and the contention of the Appellant/Defendant in this regard is not acceded to by this Court. 44. As far as the present case is concerned, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s father Ramasamy even though he died in the year 1980 and the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has along with her sisters has effected the partition of the properties as per Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 among themselves, the father Ramasamy has not objected to the division of properties made among his daughters, during his life time. The 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and her sisters obtained right to the properties mentioned in Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 by applying the Principle of ‘Feeding the Estoppel’. Also, by virtue of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the 1t Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and her sisters get right to the properties mentioned in Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973. 45. The 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and her sisters obtained right to the properties mentioned in Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 by applying the Principle of ‘Feeding the Estoppel’. Also, by virtue of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the 1t Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and her sisters get right to the properties mentioned in Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973. 45. In the present case, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (since deceased) has established that the suit properties have been allotted to her father’s share in the partition and later it has been allotted to her as per Partition Deed - Ex.A.1 dated 12.3.1973. Though the Appellant/Defendant has taken the plea of adverse possession, he has not filed necessary documents to prove the same. To put it precisely, the documents filed on the side of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (sine deceased) viz., Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973, Ex.A.2-Certified copy of Chitta in the name of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s father bearing No.117, Ex.A.3-Cultivation Accounts in the name of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s father Ramasamy, Ex.A.4 to A.39-House Tax Receipts and Ex.A.43 - certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 10.3.1948 for Rs.200/- go to clinchingly prove that the suit properties have been allotted to the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff’s father initially and later the same have been allotted to her as per Partition Deed and suffice it for this Court to state that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (since deceased) has proved her case to the subjective satisfaction of this Court and therefore she is entitled to get the relief of declaration in respect of her right over the suit properties and consequentially, she is also entitled to obtain relief of recovery of possession from the Appellant/Defendant in respect of the suit properties and the view taken by both the courts that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (since deceased) is entitled to the Decree in her favour on the basis of Ex.A.1-Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 do not suffer from any patent illegality or serious irregularity and viewed in that perspective, the Second Appeal fails. 46. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 46. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court viz., the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur dated 13.2.1996 in A.S.No.49 of 1992 and the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur in O.S.No.238 of 1998 dated 30.4.1991 are affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in the Second Appeal.