Son has to prove that for illegal and immoral purposes father has alienated the properties.

S.JAGADEESAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in C.S.No.188/1972 filed O.S.A.No.261/1995 having aggrieved by the disallowed portion with reference to his claim in the judgment and decree passed in the said suit.

2. O.S.A.No.284/1996 is by the 1st defendant in the said suit, having aggrieved by the judgment and decree therein rejecting his claim that the plaint Schedule properties are his absolute properties and nobody can claim any title, interest or whatsoever in the same during his lifetime.

3. The 1st defendant filed another Appeal in O.S.A.No.237/1996 against the dismissal of his suit in C.S.No.442/1983 filed by him for a declaration that he is the owner of all the properties. For the convenience the parties are referred to herein as their description in C.S.No.188/1972.

4. The plaintiff in C.S.No.188/1972 filed the suit claiming partition on the basis that the suit properties are the joint family properties consisting of plaintiff, 1st defendant, defendants 2 to 4 and the 76th defendant. The 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff. 76th defendant is his mother, and defendants 2 to 4 are the daughters of 1st defendant and 76th defendant. The plaintiff claims right in the suit property through his paternal great grandfather Diwan Bahadur P.Somasundram Chettiar who died on 25.12.1929 leaving his adopted son P.S.Sathappa Chettiar. Sathappa Chettiar had two wives, Visalakshi Achi, who died during the lifetime of her husband in 1934, and Seethai Achi. Sathappa Chettiar died on 7.3.1950 leaving his second wife as his heir and gave an authority to adopt a son. Exercising such authority, Seethai Achi, the second wife of Sathappa Chettiar adopted the 1st defendant, Somasundaram Chettiar on 25.5.1951. The 1st defendant after adoption married Meenakshi Achi, the 76th defendant and they have four children the plaintiff, and the defendants 2 to

4. Originally, the suit was filed by the appellant as the first plaintiff when he was a minor represented by his mother who was also impleaded as second plaintiff and after he attained majority, his mother, the second plaintiff, was transposed as 76th defendant as per the order dated 23.06.1987 made in A.No.1446 of 1987.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that during 1966-1967, the first defendant alienated several joint family properties and business or management for immoral and illegal purpose and so those alienation are not binding on the plaintiff or the joint family. It is also stated that the considerations received from out of those alienation are inadequate and further there was no necessity for the family to alienate the properties. Referring to Schedule VIII, which relates to Sea View bungalow, Santhome High Road, Chennai, it is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant was living with the 5th defendant as husband and wife in concubinage, and due to her undue influence and coercion, the 1st defendant entered into an agreement with her to sell the property and as such the said agreement of sale is void and unenforceable. It is also stated that such an agreement is not binding on the plaintiff, as it is a joint family property, and the sale is also not for the benefit of the family.

6. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit contending inter alia that all the properties are his absolute properties and no one has any right or claim in the same. In support of his plea that the suit properties are not the joint family properties, he further stated that his father Sathappa Chettiar died in 1950 leaving behind his widow Seethai Achi as the sole surviving legal heir and she succeeded to the entire estate of her husband , acquiring limited estate as provided under the Hindu Womens right to Property Act, 1937. The 1st defendant claims that he never exercised his option for his share in the estate of his father till the demise of his mother, and after the death of Seethai Achi, all her absolute properties including the suit properties devolved upon the 1st defe