1. This Appeal is focused by the Defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2008 made in O.S.No.20 of 2004, which was a Suit for partition, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Perambalur. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

2. A summation and summarization of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Appeal would run thus:

The Plaintiffs four in number filed in the Suit as against the Defendants seeking partition: “Tamil”

3. D1 filed the Written Statement for herself and on behalf of her minor child/D2 resisting the Suit, contending that they are entitled to the share of her deceased husband in the first item of the suit properties. ‘B’ scheduled property as per her, happened to be the exclusive property of her husband, namely Manoharan; whereupon issues were framed.

4. During trial, the First Plaintiff-Singaram examined himself as PW1 along with PW-2 Veerapandiyan and marked Exs.A1 to A15. The First Defendant-Lalitha examined herself as DW1.

5. Ultimately the Trial Court decreed the Suit ordering partition concerning both the properties, allotting 10/12 shares in favour of the Plaintiffs and 2/12 shares in favour of the Defendants. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the Defendants preferred this Appeal on various grounds.

6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants placing reliance on the grounds of Appeal would pilate his arguments, inviting the attention of this Court to various portions of the records, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(a) The ‘B’ scheduled property which is a tractor, was purchased from out of the exclusive income of the deceased Manoharan – the husband of D1 and father of D2. However, the Trial Court without taking note of the said fact, simply rejected their exclusive claim over the ‘B’ scheduled property.

(b) The Defendants on the death of Manoharan, virtually were left without any source of income and they were entitled to maintenance, but that was denied to them. The First Plaintiff, being the father-in-law in possession of the entire suit properties, did not choose to provide any maintenance to the Defendants. As such, the Trial Court should have taken note of it and awarded maintenance also payable by the First Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants.

Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants would pray for partly setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in rejecting the aforesaid prayer of the Defendants, and for decreeing the Suit granting exclusive right over the ‘B’ scheduled property in favour of the Defendants and also for ordering maintenance payable by the First Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants.

7. In a bid to shoot down and mince meat, torpedo and pulverize the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the Appellants/Defendants, the learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs would advance his arguments, the thumb nail sketch of the same would run thus:

(a) Ex facie and prima facie, from the evidence of DW1 (D1), it is clear that on the Defendants’ side, no iota or shred, miniscule or molecular extent of evidence was produced to show that the deceased Manoharan had the financial wherewithal, to purchase the tractor for a sum of rupees nearly two lakhs. However, Exs.A3, A5 & A6 would unambiguously and unequivocally, pellucidly and palpably, display and demonstrate that it was the First Plaintiff, from out of the joint family funds and also by raising funds, purchased the said tractor in the name of his eldest son, the deceased Manoharan. As such, the contention as put forth on the side of the Defendants before the Trial Court has to be rejected in limine.

(b) The Defendants cannot claim both maintenance and also pray for mesne profits out of the first item of the suit properties and it is quite obvious also.

Accordingly, the