Proof of parentage cannot be inferred from birth extract.

(Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.1.194 and made in A.S.No.105 of 1994 on the file of the District Court, Villupuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 18.1.1990 made in O.S.No.152 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.)

The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below concurrently is the appellant.

2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged ½ share in the suit properties on the following grounds: viz., that the suit properties originally belonged to one Thanappa Gounder as his self acquired properties, that he died intestate leaving a son by name Venkatachalam and a daughter by name Annammal as his heirs, that since the properties were owned by Thanappa Gounder as his self acquired properties, Annammal was entitled to ½ share, which she had sold to the plaintiff on 30.1.1984, that the defendant is enjoying the properties, having purchased the same, as if all the properties belonged to Venkatachalam, though Venkatachalam was entitled to only ½ share and that since the claim for partition was negatived, which should be considered by the Court, granting the relief as prayed for.

3. The defendant in the original written statement would contend that the suit properties originally belonged to Thannappa Gounder and his son Venkatachala Gounder as Hindu Joint Family properties, that on the death of Thanappa Gounder in the year 1970, Venkatachalam inherited the same by survivorship and sold to the defendant on 20.1.1972, that he prescribed title to the suit property also by adverse possession, since enjoying the same well over for 12 years, that Annammal, the alleged vendor of the plaintiff is not the daughter of Thanappa Gounder, through legally wedded wife, whereas she is the daughter of Thanappa Gounder through one Panjali, who was already married and left her husband, lived with Thanappa Gounder and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to partition, thereby praying the suit to be dismissed.

4. In the Additional Written Statement, it is stated assuming that the plaintiff’s vendor is the daughter of Thanappa Gounder, if at all she was entitled to only ¼ share, which alone could be claimed by the plaintiff, as the purchaser and that the suit is bad for partial partition.

5. In the reply statement, the plaintiff has stated that at the time of the sale in favour of the plaintiff by Annammal, the properties available are only the suit properties, that the plaintiff is not claiming any share in other properties and therefore, the suit is not bad for partial partition and that the defendant has not prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession.

6. Based upon the above pleadings, the parties went on trial before the trial Court, where on behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 & 2 seeking aid from Exs.A1 to A5, which are sought to be eclipsed by the examination of six witnesses on behalf of the defendant in addition to producing Exs.B1 to B13.

7. The learned trial Judge mainly relying upon Ex.A3 as well as holding, that the defendant had not discharged the burden of proof viz., failed to prove that the plaintiff’s vendor is not the daughter of Thanappa Gounder, concluded that plaintiff’s vendor is the legitimate daughter of Thanappa Gounder, entitled to inherit his properties, that though there were some ancestral properties as per the evidence, the defendant failed to prove that Thanappa Gounder should have purchased the other items from the income derived by him from the joint family properties and in this view, treating the suit properties as self acquired properties, held that the share sold by the plaintiff’s vendor must be one half, that the suit is not bad for partial partition and that the defendant has not prescribed title to the suit properties by adverse possession. In this view, declaring the plaintiff’s ½ share, a preliminary decree was grant