The central legal point established is the entitlement of legal heirs to ancestral properties under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and the requirement of pleading and proof for establishing ouster in co-ownership disputes.

Aggrieved over the preliminary decree passed by the Trial court dividing the suit property into three shares and allot 1/3 shares to the plaintiff, the present appeal came be filed by the defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff is the sister of the defendant. Pursuant to the partition that took place between the defendant and the father of the parties, by name, Mohan, on 27.3.1975, the suit ‘A’ schedule properties was allotted to the said Mohan and ‘B’ schedule property was allotted to the defendant herein. The said Mohan died intestate on 12.8.1987 leaving behind the plaintiff, the defendant and his wife Soundaram as his class I legal heirs. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in the suit properties.

(ii) When the plaintiff and her husband were sick and were being hospitalized for a few weeks prior to 3.4.2008, the defendant, taking advantage of her absence from the suit property and her illness, was making attempt to demolish the existing structure in the suit properties and to reconstruct new structure thereon. Hence, the suit.

4. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

(i) Admitting the relationship and also the allotment made in the suit properties to Mohan, the father of the defendant, by way of partition on 27.3.1975, it is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to 1/3 share in the suit properties. The alleged joint possession is also denied by the defendant. The allegation that the plaintiff used to come to Erode and often stay for a couple of days in the suit properties and again leaves to Chennai is also denied. The mesne profits and the damages claimed by the plaintiff is also denied.

(ii) It is the contention of the defendant that at the time of marriage of the plaintiff, she was presented with gold ornaments, costly house hold articles and cash. Two months after marriage, the plaintiff had left to Chennai to lead a family life. At the time of leaving home, the plaintiff had voluntarily relinquished her share in the family property and surrendered her share to the defendant. After the death of the said Mohan, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant and his mother were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in exclusion of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was residing at Chennai and she never visited the suit properties. The defendant’s mother out of love and affection had executed Settlement Deed in favour of the defendant in respect of her separate property on 23.5.2007 and also executed registered Sale Deed for 1/3rd share in the suit properties on 08.6.2007 in favour of the defendant without anybody s inducement. The plaintiff was aware of the Settlement Deed and also Sale Deed executed by her mother in favour of the defendant. Only in the year 2008, when his mother came to Chennai to the plaintiff s house, the plaintiff poisoned her mind with ill advice and brought out an evil design to cause issuance of legal notice with an ulterior motive. There is no cause of action in the suit and the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether suit properties were in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff has relinquished her share in favour of the defendant orally?

3. Whether the settlement deed executed in favor of the defendant by mother and sale deed in respect of 1/3 in favor of the defendant is true?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled 1/3 share in the suit property?

5. To what relief.

6. The Trial Court has also framed the following Additional Issue:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits?

7. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and