Court rules against plaintiff in partition claim over self-acquired properties.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of partition as the properties were self-acquired and not joint family properties. The plaintiff's claim for a share in the properties was dismissed, and the court found no evidence of family businesses at Kumbakonam. The suit properties were deemed the absolute properties of the plaintiff's father, and the plaintiff was not in joint possession. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the suit and counterclaim, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to one-third share in the suit properties and separate possession thereof.
3. Whether there are and were businesses of the family at Kumbakonam run under the name and style of Palaniappan Bankers and Palaniappa Jewellers and whether the first defendant is liable to account for the profits in the said business.
4. Whether the suit properties are the joint family properties or absolute properties of late P.L.Ramanatha Chettiar.
5. Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit properties.
6. Whether the Court Fees paid under the Section 37(2) of Court Fees Act is maintainable.
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs.
8. Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.
9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
10. Whether the suit is barred for partial partition.
11. Whether sale in the name of the ninth defendant is hit by lis pendens.
12. To what extent the plaintiff is entitled to.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition.
The court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition. The properties in question were determined to be self-acquired by the plaintiff's father, P.L.Ramanathan @ P.L.Meenatchi Sundaram, and not joint family properties. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim a share in these properties as a coparcener.

Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to one-third share in the suit properties and separate possession thereof.
The court concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to one-third share in the suit properties. The properties were found to be self-acquired by the plaintiff's father and bequeathed to the first defendant through a valid will. The plaintiff's claim that the properties were ancestral and hence she was entitled to a share was dismissed.

Issue 3: Whether there are and were businesses of the family at Kumbakonam run under the name and style of Palaniappan Bankers and Palaniappa Jewellers and whether the first defendant is liable to account for the profits in the said business.
The court found no evidence to support the claim that there were family businesses at Kumbakonam under the names Palaniappan Bankers and Palaniappa Jewellers. Therefore, the first defendant is not liable to account for any profits from such businesses.

Issue 4: Whether the suit properties are the joint family properties or absolute properties of late P.L.Ramanatha Chettiar.
The court determined that the suit properties are the absolute properties of late P.L.Ramanatha Chettiar and not joint family properties. The properties were acquired through the income generated from the partnership business run by L.P.L.Palaniappa Chettiar and P.L.Palaniappa Chettiar, and not from any ancestral nucleus.

Issue 5: Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit properties.
The court found that the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff resides in the USA and conducts the case through her power of attorney. Additionally, there are residential flats constructed on the suit properties, indicating that the plaintiff does not have physical possession.

Issue 6: Whether the Court Fees paid under the Section 37(2) of Court Fees Act is maintainable.
The court concluded that the court fees paid under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the suit properties.

Issue 7: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs.
The court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any other reliefs. The primary claim for partition was dismissed, and no other claims were substantiated with sufficient evidence.

Issue 8: Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.
The court determined that the suit is not barred for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The other legal heirs of P.L.Palaniappa Chettiar were not necessary parties as the claim for partition was dismissed.

Issue 9: Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
The court found that the suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiff issued a notice before the institution of the suit, and there was no plea of ouster taken by the defendants.

Issue 10: Whether the suit is barred for partial partition.
The court held that the suit is not barred for partial partition. There was no evidence to show that other joint family properties existed or were excluded from the suit.

Issue 11: Whether sale in the name of the ninth defendant is hit by lis pendens.
The court concluded that the sale in favor of the ninth defendant is hit by the principle of lis pendens. The sale and subsequent construction of flats occurred during the pendency of the suit, making the transaction subject to the outcome of the suit.

Issue 12: To what extent the plaintiff is entitled to.
The court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. The properties were self-acquired by the plaintiff's father and bequeathed to the first defendant through a valid will.

Conclusion:
The suit and the counterclaim of defendants 5 to 7 were dismissed. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs. The properties in question were determined to be self-acquired by the plaintiff's father, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in them. The claims of the defendants 5 to 7 were also barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

---