The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct calculation of shares in the suit properties based on the nature of the properties and the evidence presented.

1. The appellant, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit filed this Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 20.03.2002 made in A.S.No.96 of 2000 on the file of Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2000 made in O.S.No.160 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Court, Perambalur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the second defendant in the suit referred as appellant and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are referred as respondents 1 to 3 and 1st defendant referred as 4th respondent and 3rd defendant referred as 5th respondent hereafter.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 and one unborn child filed a suit for partition of 4/10 shares in the A-schedule properties and also the 1st respondent seeking relief of recovery of B-schedule movable properties or the value of Rs.10,800/- for the above said movable properties. Subsequently, the above said unborn child died on January 1991.

4. Briefly the case of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the 1st respondent is wife of 4th respondent and their children are the respondents 2 and 3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, the suit A-schedule properties are joint family properties and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 and the above said unborn deceased child are entitled to 4/10 shares in the suit properties. It is further stated that the B-schedule properties belongs to 1st respondent and therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled to the above said B-schedule movables or cost of movables of Rs.10,800/-. Since the 3rd respondent is necessary party to the suit, he is impleaded as a party. Hence, the suit.

5. The 4th respondent and the appellant herein, who are the 1st and 2nd defendant in the suit filed the written statement and additional written statement, in which they admitted that the 1st respondent is wife of 4th respondent and respondents 2 and 3 are their children. But, denied the contention that the suit properties are joint family properties. The suit items 2, 3 and 4 belongs to the mother of the appellant namely Dhanabagyathammal and the other items except 10th item are self-acquired properties of the appellant. Further, 10th item and one acre 90 cents in 8th item alone are ancestral properties. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to any share in the suit properties. It is further stated that the 5th respondent, who is wife of the appellant is also a joint owner with the 4th respondent, hence, she is necessary party. Further, the appellant daughters namely Rukmani, Suseela and Chinthamani are also necessary parties to the suit. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to any share in the suit properties.

6. The 5th respondent filed a separate written statement, in which, it is stated that the 2nd item in A-schedule was purchased by the father of the 5th respondent namely Periyathambi Padayachi on 01.07.1944 and the above said property was given to 5th respondent as Sreedhana on the date of marriage on 20.08.1951 and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to any share in the 2nd item since it is not a joint family property. Further, this respondent is also entitled to 1/3 share except items 2, 3 and 4.

7. From the above said pleadings, the trial court has framed nine issues. On the side of the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs one witness was examined as PW1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.A1 to A11 and on the side of the appellant two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.B1 to B12. The trial court has considered the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and finally held that the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to 3/15 share in A-schedule properties except 2nd item and dismissed the suit in respect of other reliefs. Aggrieved over the above said finding of the trial court, the appellant, who is 2nd defendant in this suit alone preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.96 of 2000. The 1st appellate court has confirmed the decree and j