Property purchased by Co-parceners of Hindu undivided family.

1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The suit O.S.No. 209 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin was filed by the plaintiff who claims to be the son of the deceased defendant, Mariappan, who died after the disposal of the first appeal A.S.No.120 of 1989 and before the filing of the Second appeal before this Court.

3. According to the plaintiff he and his father the first defendant constituted a joint family. There was joint family nucleus and with the help of the income from the nucleus the properties were purchased in the name of the defendant. His mother was also employed and the income earned by the mother of the plaintiff was also utilised for purchasing the properties. According to him the first schedule formed part of the joint family property. The second schedule property was purchased in the name of the first defendant, third schedule properties were purchased in the name of the mother of the first defendant, and the fourth schedule properties were movable properties. The mother of the plaintiff died on 24. 1973. The first defendant and the plaintiff were the only heirs. The plaintiff continued to live with the joint family till 1975. The dispute arose between the defendant and the plaintiff in sharing the amounts payable to them by way of provident fund etc. to the deceased mother. Hence, he left the joint family in the year 1975. Since the first defendant attempted to dispose of the properties standing in his name he has filed the suit after sending a notice to the defendant on 11. 1984.

.4. The defence was that the alleged joint family nucleus was very small in extent. Out of which, one item of the A schedule property was inherited by the defendants after the death of his brother who died unmarried. The other properties were purchased by his own earnings and not from the joint family nucleus. In item 5 of the A schedule property the defendant has got only a share as it remained undivided by himself and by his brothers. Since all the Schedule properties were self acquired properties, the plaintiff is not entitled to half share. The mother of the plaintiff though employed in a mill she did not earn sufficient income to contribute to the purchase of the properties. The plaintiff left the family in the year 1960 itself. He never contributed any amount and the second schedule properties were not purchased out of the income of the plaintiff. The first defendant has dealt with the properties standing in his name independently. The plaintiff has attested the mortgages. Hence, he is estopped from disputing the defendants exclusive right to the properties in the second schedule items. The plaintiff is not entitled to half share in the property. The first defendant married one Annapackiam as his second wife. Three female child and one male child were born to him through his second wife. Hence, they should have been added as parties in the suit. In the fourth schedule properties the plaintiff has no right and the suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Another plea was that even though the third schedule property was in the name of the mother she was only a binami for the defendant and the defendant alone paid sale consideration for the purchases in her name. Hence, the plaintiff has no right in the third schedule properties also.

5. The Courts below have concurrently found that there was joint family nucleus and the properties standing in the name of the mother and the defendant were out of the income of the joint family nucleus. Hence, the Courts below decreed the suit as prayed for that is giving the plaintiff half share in the schedule 1 to 3. It appears that after the appeal was disposed of by the lower appellate Court, the first defendant died. The children of the said first defendant born to him through Annapackiam have preferred the second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the claim of the present appella