Daughters of deceased did not relinquish nor abandoned their rights.

M. Thanikachalam, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The appellant as plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.1676/97 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court at Madras, for partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in the suit property, praying for a preliminary decree. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Late K.M. Subramaniam had purchased the suit property, under a registered sale deed dated 11.1.1950. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, his father was enjoying the same, being in possession, till he died intestate, in the year 1977.

3. The first defendant (since deceased) is the wife of K.M.Subramaniam i.e. the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 10. The averments made in the plaint would suggest, that the daughters of K.M. Subramaniam are not entitled to any share in the suit property, since they were already married before 1970, settled with their respective husbands. Thus, in a way, the plaintiff claiming that the suit property belonged to the family, as an ancestral one, (though not pleaded so) had claimed a share of 1/6th. Since the share is denied, according to the plaintiff, the suit has been filed, for the demarcation of the share, by metes and bounds.

4. The deceased first defendant in her written statement would contend, that her father in law, sold a house at Kozhikode, migrated to Gobichettipalayam, where he started a hotel business, utilising the balance sale proceeds of the house, at Kozhikode, that in 1950, when her husband and his two brothers were managing the hotel at Gobichettipalayam, under an agreement, K.M.Subramaniam was given Rs.10,000/- as one time settlement, that late K.M. Subramanian had purchased the suit property on 11.1.1950, utilising the amount received by him under the agreement. In this view, the first defendant would contend that she is entitled to 1/55th share, whereas the 4th defendant is entitled to 12/55th share. Thus, claiming share for herself and the 4th defendant, a prayer was made in the written statement, to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

5. The second defendant in his written statement, affirming the purchase made by K.M. Subramaniam, had stated that the suit property is an ancestral property, in which Shri Shankara Bala Vidyalaya was established, by constructing a small building in the year 1958, that to manage the school, a trust by name Sree Sharada Education Trust has been formed in the year 1964, which trust had put up additional building in the years 1965 and 1975, in which he has got 7/39th share, which should be divided by metes and bounds.

6. The 4th defendant in his separate statement, in a way reiterating the stand taken by the first defendant, would contend, that the suit property is not the self acquired property of late K.M.Subramaniam, whereas it is the ancestral joint family property, in which he is entitled to 7/39th share.

7. The 9th defendant, in her separate written statement, has taken the specific stand, that the suit property is the self acquired property of late K.M.Subramaniam, who is employed in Binny and Co. It is the further case of the 9th defendant, that since K.M.Subramaniam died intestate, all the class-I heirs of late K.M.Subramaniam including his daughters are entitled to equal share in the properties left by him. Therefore, according to her, the plaintiff is not entitled to 1/5th share.

8. The 10th defendant in her written statement has stated that K.M.Subramaniam, who was employed in Binny & Co. had acquired the suit property, utilising his personal earnings and therefore, the property cannot be treated as ancestral, by any stretch of imagination. According to her, she along with other class-I legal heirs of late K.M. Subramaniam, are equally entitled to claim share, in the suit property and ignoring this fact, the plaintiff cannot claim 1/6th share treating the suit property as ancestral one against the fact.

9. The 12th defendant is the daughter of Rukmani Krishnan. Adopting the written stat