The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of entitlement to property under the Hindu Succession Act in the absence of a valid Will.

1. The Plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The property bearing Old Door No.15, New No.31, Rangan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 more fully described in the 'A' Schedule annexed to the plaint was the absolute property of one V.Srinivasan. He died intestate on 20.06.2001 leaving behind him the plaintiff Latha Rajagopalan and the defendants 1 to 7 and also one S.Kalyani (no more) as his legal representatives to inherit the said property. The said Kalyani, who was none other than the mother of the plaintiff, died on 01.10.2003 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 as her legal representatives. The movables described in plaint 'B' schedule were the absolute properties of Kalyani and the deceased Kalyani did have a common 1/9th share in the property left by her husband Srinivasan, namely the property described as 'A' Schedule. After the demise of Kalyani, plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 7 became entitled to 1/8th share each in both plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Though the plaintiff was making repeated requests to the defendants to effect an amicable partition, the defendants, especially Defendants 1 to 5 simply dragged on the matter putting forward one or other excuses.

(b) Meanwhile the brothers of the plaintiff, namely Defendants 1 to 5, especially Defendants 1 to 4, are trying to keep the properties for themselves without giving any benefit of enjoyment to the family members. The first defendant is in custody of 46 items of silver ornaments and 23 items of gold jewels described in Plaint 'B' schedule. A list of the said items was prepared by a Goldsmith known to the family members and xerox copies of the same have been given to the plaintiff and each one of the defendants. The first defendant is keeping the original. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the first defendant did not come forward to give the 1/8th share of the plaintiff in plaint 'B' schedule items to the plaintiff. As the attempts made by the plaintiff to get an amicable partition of plaint 'A' schedule property and get her 1/8th share in the plaint 'B' schedule items proved ineffective, she issued a lawyer's notice on 10.04.2007 calling upon the defendants to come forward and join her in effecting a partition of the father's property, namely plaint 'A' schedule property. In the said notice, the first defendant was also called upon to disburse the plaintiff's 1/8th share in the plaint 'B' schedule items. Though all the defendants received the said notice, except the 5th defendant, other defendants failed to comply with the demand made in the notice. The 5th defendant alone sent a reply dated 28.04.2007 containing incorrect and untenable averments. Plaintiff being a co-owner and co-sharer of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, she is in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. As it is no more convenient to continue the joint possession, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for partition of the suit properties and separate possession of her 1/8th share and for cost of the suit.

2. The averments found in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 4, in brief, are as follows:-

It is not correct to state that the father of the parties, namely Late P.Srinivasan died intestate. On the other hand, before his death on 26.06.2001, he had been repeatedly stating that he had written a Will bequeathing the immovable property, namely the land and the building shown as plaint 'A' schedule property, to his sons, since all the three daughters of Srinivasan had been given decent marital life. However, by way of compensation to the daughters for their dis-inheritance, it has been provided in the Will that they would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-each and the sons of Srinivasan shall bear the expenses for making such payment. On more than one occasion, Late V.Srinivasan informed the said fact of his having written a Will with the above said particulars to the plaintiff in the presence