Step sons and step daughters cannot be held as sons and daughters.

S.A. Kader, J.

1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, is O.S.No. 69 of 1977. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. This is a suit for partition and separate possession and for accounts. The plaint averments are briefly as follows: The A schedule to the plaint is the genealogical table. One Mookka Goundar had two sons by name Perianna Gounder and Arunachala Goundar through his predeceased first wife Chellayeeammal. There was an oral partition among him and his sons in which the B schedule properties were allotted to the father Mookka Goundar. This oral partition was confirmed by a registered deed dated 19-8-1928. Subsequently the said Mookka Goundar wanted to marry one Kamakshi Ammal as his second wife and executed in her favour a premarital settlement on 7-7-1928, settling the B schedule properties on her. She was to enjoy the properties without any power of alienation and if she died issueless then the properties would revert back to the settlor Mookka Gounder and his heirs. Mookka Goundar married Kamakshi Ammal and begot two children both of whom died early in their lives. The C schedule properties were subsequently acquired by Mookka Goundar and were his separate properties. Mookka Gounder died in or about 1939. Of the two sons of Mookka Gounder through his first wife i.e. Perianna and Arunachala, the latter Arunachala died in 1934 leaving behind his widow the plaintiff herein as his sole heir. Perianna Gounder died in 1971. The first defendant is his son, the second defendant is his daughter and the third defendant is another predeceased daughter's daughter. The second wife of Mookka Goundar died on 22-2-1975. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the B and C schedule properties as heir to her father-in-law Mookka Goundar. According to her, she is entitled to a half share as a heir to her husband Arunachala Goundar while the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to the other half as heirs to Perianna Goundar. She also claimed accounts from the first defendant.

3. The first defendant resisted the action. He denied that there was any oral partition between Mookka Gounder and his sons or that the B schedule properties were allotted to Mookka Goundar. He also denied and disputed the truth and validity of the premarital settlement deed dated 7-7-1929 in favour of Kamakshi Ammal, the second wife of Mookka Goundar. On the death of Mookka Goundar in 1939, the first defendant claimed that his father was his sole heir and by virtue of the will executed by his father, the first defendant was entitled to all the properties of his father. On the death of Kamakshi Ammal in 1975, the first defendant was the only heir of Mookka Gounder and has become entitled to the B schedule properties. The plaintiff is not his heir and is not entitled to any share. The C schedule properties were not the separate properties of Mookka Goundar. They were joint family properties purchased out of the joint family income. As such Mookka Goundar has no exclusive right. In any event, the C schedule properties were possessed and enjoyed by Mookka Goundar till his death and after his death the said property was possessed and enjoyed by Perianna Goundar, the first defendant's father. As per his will the first defendant has become entitled to these properties. In any event, the first defendant and prior to him his father have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the C schedule properties and have perfected title by adverse possession for over the statutory period. The plaintiff has never been in possession and is not entitled to claim any share. According to the first defendant, the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid.

4. The second defendant remained ex parte.

5. The third defendant accepted the plaintiff's claim and contended that on the death of Kamakshi Ammal the plaintiff was entitled to a ha