Grandsons do not have right in self-acquired property which has been inherited by sons of deceased.

The defendant in the court below is the appellant. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition claiming 1/2 share in the suit property bearing Old No.2 New No.2/1 and 2/2 Sheruffudin Sehib Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-24. The suit was filed on the basis that V.Natesapillai was the Kartha of Hindu undivided family along with his two sons N.Ethirajan, the father of the first plaintiff and the defendant and the suit property according to the plaintiffs is the copartionary property. The second plaintiff is the wife of the said N.Ethirajan. After the death of Natesapillai who died on 05.01.1959 the coparcenary property devolved by survivorship upon the two sons stated above.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the father of the first plaintiff and the husband of the second plaintiff, namely, N.Ethirajan is stated to have executed a release deed on 30.12.1972 in respect of his right in the coparcenary property in favour of the defendant and the said release deed is concocted and invalid. At the time when the said Ethirajan executed the release deed the second plaintiff was conceived and the child, namely, the first plaintiff was born on 18.09.1973 and therefore, the first plaintiff was in womb of the mother and therefore, the father had no right to release the share in favour of his brother, namely, the defendant. According to the plaintiffs in spite of the said release the said N.Ethirajan has lived as a coparcenary member in the same property till his death on 16.01.1998 leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs to succeed to his undivided share in the coparcenary property and therefore, the release deed is not valid. According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about the release deed only on 09.09.1998 when the first plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the release deed from the Sub Registrar office, Kodambakkam, Chennai. The plaintiffs have issued a legal notice to the defendant on 010. 1998 and by a reply notice dated 20.10.1998 the defendant has refused to comply with the said demand. According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about the execution of the release deed by Ethirajan dated 30.12.1972 only on 09.09.1998, the suit came to be filed on 07.09.2001.

.3. The case of the defendant in the written statement filed by him was that while it is admitted that the said Ethirajan and the defendant are the sons of V.Natesapillai, it is denied that they constituted an undivided family and that the said V.Natesapillai was the kartha of the family. They also denied that the suit property was a coparcenary property. According to the defendant, V.Natesapillai died on 15.01.1959 and not on 05.01.1959. According to the defendant, after the death of V.Natesapillai the property did not fall on his son by survivorship. The defendant states that V.Natesapillai was working in Burma Railway, after he returned to India in 1941, he has acquired a land at Sarfudeen Shahib Street, Chulaimedu, Chennai and put up a construction. Thereafter, in 1942 and 1943 by different sale deeds he acquired small adjacent bits of lands, all of them combined as Door No.02. The purchase of the adjacent lands were exclusively from the funds of V.Natesapillai. According to the defendant, Natesapillai had his wife, two sons and four daughters. In meeting the expenses for the two daughters’ marriage he had mortgaged the said property and he could not clear the same before his death. After his death the said N.Ethirajan and the defendant along with their mother have celebrated the marriage one of their sisters Thulasiammal in 1959 by borrowing Rs.3,000/- from Meenachiammal on 210. 1959. It is to clear the said amount the said Meenachiammal and also to clear some of the other debts of V.Natesapillai, by mortgaging the property a further mortgage was created on 012. 1959, since the defendant as well as his brother were to perform the marriage of the other sister Anjalakshmi and also to maintain their mother, the mother and sisters execut