Same transactions to be only under one document.

The plaintiff Indirani Ammal, who has filed a suit for partition, since she is not satisfied with the decree passed partially has filed this appeal.

.2. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging as follows:

.The plaintiff is the daughter of one Thayarammal by her husband Ezhumalai. About 25 years ago Thayarammal left her husband and came to live with one P.V.Gopalan Nair as his mistress. The plaintiff was brought up by them and she was living with them till her marriage. First defendant was born to Thayarammal and Gopalan Nair. Plaint Schedule item 1 house property was owned by the plaintiffs mother Thayarammal and Gopalan Nair which has been purchased by them under Ex.A-1 Sale Deed, dated 14. 1974. The plaint item 2 land measuring 1.09 acres was owned and possessed by Thayarammal and first defendant which has been purchased by them under Ex.A-2 Registered Sale Deed dated 21. 1972. Thayarammal was thus entitled to a moiety in each of the said properties. Thayarammal pre-deceased Gopalan Nair on 10. 1975. She left behind the plaintiff and the first defendant as her heirs. Gopalan Nair was not married Thayarammal and she was only her paramour. He also died on 1,8.1978. Both the plaintiff and the first defendant as the heirs of Thayarammal inherited her right to moiety in both the properties. The plaintiff became entitled to l/4th share in the said properties and the first defendant became entitled to l/4th share in the first item and 3/4th share in second item. Thayarammal had left a fixed deposit amount of Rs.10,000, viz., The third item in the plaint schedule with the second defendant Bank. The plaintiff became entitled to a moiety in this deposit amount also. While so the plaintiff learnt that Gopalan Nair had executed a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant on 210. 1975 purporting to settle the entire first item house. Since Gopalan Nair was entitled to only a moiety in the said property he was not competent to execute a settlement deed in respect of the other moiety which was owned and possessed, by Thayarammal. The settlement deed is void in so far as the plaintiff’s l/4th share is concerned. Since it is no longer possible to be a co-owner with the first defendant the plaintiff had to file a suit for partition of her shares in the three items of properties. She has also prayed for mesne profits in respect of the first item of properties for the past three years.

3. The first defendant resisting the suit contended in. her written statement that her father Gopalan Nair got Rs.10,00,000 in a lottery and with that amount he purchased the suit item 1 in the name of himself and Thayarammal. The purchase in the name of Thayarammal also will not confer any beneficial interest on her and Gopalan Nair had absolute right to settle this property. Gopalan Nair settled this property upon this defendant who is his daughter out of love and affection; Just three days after the settlement on this defendant, due to the persuasion of herself and her husband Gopalan Nair settled another house property at No.4/1, Eswaran Koil Street, Gowripet, Avadi, Madras, worth about Rs.75,000 on 210. 1975 in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that the plaintiff was brought up by Gopalan Nair as a sort of family arrangement he settled on her substantial property. For the third item fixed deposit amount also Gopalan Nair did not intend to confer any right on Thayarammal and this defendant was made nominee for that amount and only she is entitled to this amount and the plaintiff cannot have any claim in it. This defendant is not liable to pay any mesne profits to the plaintiff.

4. The second defendant Bank filed a written statement only stating that with regard to third item deposit of Rs.10,000 it would abide by the orders of the court.

5. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case held that in all the three items Thayarammal had beneficial interest and it rejected the case of the first defendant that G