Must a plaintiff seeking the relief of partition prove joint ownership of the suit schedule properties?

Paragraph 70The 10th plaintiff in O.S.No.76/1992 was examined as DW2. The 2 nd plaintiff Kuppusamy Naicker was examined as DW3. B.Kanniappan, son of the 1st plaintiff was examined as DW4. Shanmugham, son of Krishnammal / 8 th plaintiff was examined as DW5. Renukadevi – Cousin sister of Kanniappa Naicker / 5th plaintiff was examined as DW6. Rajapather / 4th defendant in O.S.No.76/1992 was examined as DW8. It is to be noted that the 9 th plaintiff / T.Subramaniam, 10th plaintiff / Viswanathan, 2nd defendant / R.Kanniappan in O.S.No.76/1992 had jointly filed the Suit in O.S.No.665/1990 while they were cordial with each other for a declaration of the exclusive title of 3 families represented by them and for an injunction. The said Suit was then restricted to an extent of 291.08 acres only, which according to them form part of S.No.168/3E/1A/1A/1C. The claim of the present plaintiffs in O.S.No.76/1992 seeking partition based on 1911 Settlement Register. Except for the pleadings that the names of all pattadars are found in the old S.No.168, in the Settlement Register 1911, they have not stated anywhere in the pleadings as to how they have derived title jointly over the entire extent of 407.16 acres in S.No.168. They admitted that there are 4 sub divisions in S.No.168 from 1877 Settlement and also admitted about the further sub divisions of S.No.168/D into 168/D to J in 1899. Until all these sub divisions were merged in 1911. They have not averred as to who were the pattadars in 1877 settlement with regard to 168/A, C and D and who are the pattadars from 1899 Settlement till 1911 with regard to 168/A, C to J as S.No.168/B was the only sub division which was entered in 1877. The Settlement Register mentioned 13 person names. The grant of Cowle patta to Alavandar is not disputed with regard to 168A, C and D. Similarly patta for S.No.168/A, C to J regularized in 1899 in the exclusive Patta No.32 in favour of Alavandar. The dealings by Alavandar from 1877 onwards with regard to S.No.168/A, C to J by way of mortgage, leases, labour agreements, relating to sale of Casuarina Trees and all by registered instruments cannot be disputed by these plaintiffs in O.S.No.76/1992 and they are claiming the relief of partition nearly after more than 100 years. When there is a documentary proof available in favour of Alavandar, from 1877 to 1911, in respect of S.No.168/A, C to J, in such circumstances, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.76/1992 fixed the cut off year as 1911 to decide the title has not been explained properly.

Paragraph 81In the absence of any positive evidence on the side of plaintiffs in the Suit in O.S.No.76/1992 to prove their title of joint ownership to the suit schedule properties mentioned therein, they are not entitled to the relief of partition. They have also admitted in their own pleadings that all their dealings pertains only in respect of S.No.168/B and not with reference to 168/A, C and D and in as much the Plaintiff Charity has produced voluminous documentary evidence to prove its title and its exercise of ownership by various acts and deeds. In view of the overwhelming evidence available to that effect, the plaintiff charity has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In fact the various branches of defendants [plaintiffs in O.S.No.76/1992 have categorically participated in all the leases / actions conducted by Charity and they cannot seek for any right over the suit schedule properties. Hence, they are not entitled for the relief of partition. Point No.3 and 4 are answered accordingly. Consequently, Point No.5 does not survive.