1. The plaintiff in the suit filed this appeal as against the judgement and decree dated 29.6.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court Judge, Thiruvallore, in O.S.No.342 of 2007, which was filed for partition of the suit properties.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(a) The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for partition seeking the following relief:

"to pass a decree

i) for partition of the suit A schedule item into 3 equal shares and put the plaintiff in separate possession of one such share.

ii) for partition of suit item B schedule items into two shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and the other to 1st defendant.

iii) for recovery of the plaintiffs 1/3rd share income from the date of plaint from A schedule items till separate possession is given.

iv) for costs of the suit." (extracted as such)

mainly on the ground that her deceased husband-Thanikavel, being the son of deceased Selvaraj, had share in the suit properties and that the other sharers, namely, D1-the widow of Selvaraj and Kumaravelan-the second son of the deceased Selvaraj were not agreeable for amicable partition.

(b) The defendants jointly filed the written statement resisting the suit to the effect that the suit properties 1 and 2 happened to be the self-acquired properties of Selvaraj and his wife-Dhanalakshmi-D1 herein, as those properties were purchased from out of the income of the deceased Selvaraj and joint exertion of D1 and D2 and that those items 1 and 2 were not purchased from out of the sale proceeds of any ancestral properties, as alleged in the plaint.

(c) The 3rd item of the suit properties, namely, the house was constructed on a porambokke land, encroached by the defendants recently.

(d) The deceased Selvaraj and D1 executed a Will in favour of D2, which was expected to come into force after the death of D1.

(e) The deceased Thangavel-the husband of the plaintiff dissipated the huge financial support rendered by his parents by mishandling his business. Accordingly, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(f) The trial Court framed the issues.

(g) During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with Pw.2 one Selvam and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the defendants side, the first defendant examined herself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

(h) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

(i) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred this appeal on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his arguments thus:

(i) In the reply notice-Ex.A5 issued by the defendants to the plaintiff, the former candidly and categorically admitted that they were ready and willing to share item No.3 of the suit property with the plaintiff; however, ignoring even that fact, the trial Court simply dismissed the suit.

(ii) The plaintiff, being the widow, it appears, having no substantive knowledge about the property background of the family of her in-laws and her husband, instructed her advocate as though items 1 and 2 were purchased with the help of the sale proceeds of the ancestral properties; but Ex.A1-the partition deed dated 7.2.1994 would reveal that the deceased Selvaraj, only in the year 1994 got six acres of land and a house towards his share, which are found specified as C schedule in that partition deed. However, Ex.B3-the sale deed dated 25.7.1986 would reveal and indicate that the items 1 and 2 of the suit properties were purchased by Selvaraj and D1. The relevant pleading in the plaint should have been to the effect that from out of the income derived fro