Evidentiary value of admission made by defendant.

Bellie, J.

The appellant-plaintiff R.Anandavalli is one of the daughters of Raju Konar, the first defendant being his wife, defendants 2 to 6 sons and defendants 7 and 8 daughters.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that her father Raju Konar has himself earned money and acquired the properties and the bank deposits described in the suit schedule from his meat shop. Raju Konar died intestate on 13. 1971. Each of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 are entitled to equal share in the properties. While so the defendants producing a false release deed alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff withdrew the deposit amount from the bank on 112. 1974. The plaintiff has claimed 1/9 share in the suit properties.

3. Defendants 1 to 6 defended the case by filing written statement. They denied that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Raju Konar and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9 share. They contended that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.8,000 in cash and executed a release deed dated 112. 1974 relinquishing her right in the suit properties. It is further contended that she is not entitled to any share in the amount deposited in the bank. Raju Konar inherited the meat shop business from his father Subbaiya Konar and the properties were acquired from out of the income of the meat shop. The said meat shop left by Subbaiya Konar was being run by Raju Konar and also defendants 2 to 4 and out of the income earned from that joint family business Raju Konar purchased the suit properties and some amounts were deposited in banks. The plaintiff was entitled to only l/54th share in the suit properties but even that share she relinquished by executing the said release deed. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. It is also contended that Raju Konar did not leave any gold jewels described in the schedule.

4. Defendants 7 and 8 remained ex parte. Defendants 9 and 10 banks filed written statements stating that since the plaintiff executed a release deed they paid the bank deposits to the second defendant with the consent of others.

.5. The trial court on consideration of the evidence held that the suit properties were not self-acquired properties of Raju Konar as pleaded by the plaintiff and they are joint family properties and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to 1/54 share as contended by the contesting defendants. It further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that Raju Konar left any gold jewels or promissory note or any movables described in the schedule. On these findings the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for l/54th share in the suit properties excepting the alleged gold jewels and promissory note-items (a), (b) and (c) in Part III and movables in Part IV schedule properties. Aggrieved the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

6. The main point that was argued by Mr.K.S.Ahamed, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is that the finding of the trial court that the suit properties are joint family properties is erroneous.

7. As regards the issue whether the plaintiff, as contended by the defendants, executed Ex.B-18 release deed, the finding of the trial court is perfectly right and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with that. The release deed itself has not been filed and only a certified copy has been produced. None of the defendants has gone into the witness box to speak with regard to the alleged release deed whether the plaintiff and her husband have testified as P.Ws.1 and 2 that the alleged release deed is false and fabricated one. This is sufficient to hold that the alleged release deed is a false one.

8. The only main point that has to be considered is whether the finding of the trial court that the suit properties are not the self-acquired properties of Raju Konar as pleaded by the plaintiff is not correct. It is not in dispute that the suit properties (Items I and II immovables) were purchased by Raju Konar. No document h