IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29/01/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM S.A.No.137 of 2003 and CMP No.1320 of 2003 1. K.Palanisamy 2. M.K.Palanisamy alias Palaniyappan 3. K.Subramaniam .. Appellants -Vs- Kaliammal .. Respondent This second appeal has been preferred under S.100 of The Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Karur made in A.S.No.60 of 2001 and dated 17.6.2002 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Karur made in O.S.No.331 of 1995 and dated 19.4.2001. !For Appellants : Mr.V.Ayyadurai ^For Caveator : Mr.V.Subramanian :JUDGMENT At this admission stage, heard the learned Counsel for both sides. 2. No case is made out by the appellants for making admission of this second appeal, since the Court is unable to notice any question of law or substantial question of law to be formulated for consideration. 3. It was a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for a declaration of her title in respect of the suit property along with consequential permanent injunction. The suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants stating interalia that the plaintiff had no semblance of right even in the suit property, and hence, her claim has got to be rejected. Both the Courts below agreeing with the case of the plaintiff, have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property, and hence, the declaration along with the consequential injunction were to be granted. Aggrieved defendants have brought forth this second appeal. 4. The judgments of the Courts below have been carefully scrutinised, and the rival submissions have been considered. As could be seen from the available materials, the specific case of the plaintiff was that the suit property along with the other properties belonged to one Vaiyapuri Gounder; that his son, the plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff and the said owner all entered into a family arrangement, a registered one, on 18.5.1961, which was marked as Ex.A1, wherein she was given the suit properties, and pursuant thereto, the property came to her hands, and the respective sharers also took their possession; that while so, her husband executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendants, through the Power of Attorney, which according to her are non-est, and under the guise of such sale deeds, the defendants claimed title to the property, which necessitated her to file the suit for the said reliefs. It was contested by the defendants stating that the family arrangement relied upon by the plaintiff was not valid, cannot be acted upon and has not been acted upon at all; that the suit was not one for partition; that a suit for partition should have been filed including all the members of the family along with the defendants, who were the purchasers under the sale deeds, and in view of the same, the suit was hit by the non-joinder of necessary parties, and hence, the claim has got to be rejected. 5. As stated above, both the Courts only on proper scrutiny of the available evidence and materials have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff was entitled and in possession of the property and hence entitled for the reliefs asked for. Ex.A1 was a family arrangement relied on by the plaintiff. It was a registered one. Both the Courts have pointed out that under Ex.A1 family arrangement, the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff, who is the daughter-in-law of the said Vaiyapuri. The contention of the appellants' side that the lower Courts have not properly construed the document cannot be countenanced at all, since both the Courts have pointed out that in order to have an amicable settlement of the property and also to purchase tranquility and peace in the family affairs, there arose a necessity to enter into a family arrangement, and the properties have been allotted. Needless to say that it has been settled by the Apex Court that in a family arrangement, all members of the family though they were not sharers in the property, can be parties, and allotments can be made. In the instant case, the plaintiff, who was the daughter-inlaw of Vaiyapuri and the wife of the vendor of the defendants, has been allotted the plaint Schedule properties, and hence, the contention of the appellants' side that the document has not been properly construed cannot arise at all. 6. Apart from the above, the next contention that a suit for partition should have been filed has also got to be rejected. The plaintiff has come forward with the suit seeking for a declaration of her title in the property stating that she became the owner of the property under Ex.A1 family arrangement; that pursuant thereto, she took possession of the property and was in possession of the property on the date of filing of the suit; that claiming title under the guise of the sale deeds which were executed by her husband, it was only the defendants who attempted to infringe her rights over the property, which necessitated her to file the suit for declaration and consequential injunction. Under such circumstances, the law would not require all the members of the family to be added as parties, because she was aggrieved only against the act and conduct of the defendants and not that of any of the family members, and hence, the question of non-joinder of parties would not also arise. Thus, in view of the concurrent finding, given by both the Courts, the Court is unable to see any question of law, much less substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. 7. Therefore, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. Index: Yes Internet: Yes To: 1. The Principal District Judge, Karur. 2. The District Munsif, Karur. nsv/ 