Mr. R. Subramanian, J.

The 1st defendant, who suffered a decree for partition and separate position of ?th share in the items 1 to 3 and ?rd share in Item 4, is the appellant.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties belonged to joint family consisting of her farther Ramasamy Gounder and 1st defendant Muthusamy. The said Remasamy Gounder died on 02.09.1988 leaving behind his wife Maruthakkal, two daughters Kaliammal (senior) & Kaliammal (junior) and 1st defendant, being the son. The plaintiff would claim that all the four items of properties belonged to the said joint family and seek partition and separate possession of her ?rd share in the suit properties.

3. The suit was resisted by the 1st defendant contending that not all the properties were joint family properties. According to the 1st defendant, Items 1 to 3 were admitted to be the joint family properties. The 4th item, as per the plaint, comprised of five sub-items. The 1st defendant would claim that the 4th item consists of only three sub-items; though the extent of property in the 4th item was only 6.01 acres. The 1st defendant would claim that an extent of 2.20 acres in S.Nos.435 & 440 and an extent of 1.34 acres in S.No.475/2 were purchased by him out of his own income under two sale deeds dated 10.09.1972 (Ex.B.11) and 20.04.1981 (Ex.B.12). Insofar as 2.47 acres in S.Nos.472 & 437/1, the 1st defendant would contend that the said property belonged to his mother Maruthakkal and she had executed a settlement under Ex.B.13 dated 14.11.1984, thereby settling the said property in favour of the 1st defendant. Therefore, according to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the 4th item of the properties.

4. The 2nd defendant namely Kaliammal (Junior) died pending the suit and her sons were impleaded as defendants 3 & 4 and they however remained ex parte.

5. On the above pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-III), Combatore framed the following issues

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ?rd share in the suit property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

(3) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

6. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. The 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one Natarajan as D.W.2 and marked 33 documents as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.33.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-III), Coimbatore concluded that in respect of Items 1 to 3 of the suit properties, being admittedly ancestral properties, the plaintiff would be entitled only ?th share as against her claim of ?rd share.

8. With reference to the 4th item of the properties, the defence was two fold, namely

(a) a portion of the 4th item is claimed to be the property of the 1st defendant through Ex.B.11 & Ex.B.12

(b) the remaining portion of the said property belonged to mother Maruthakkal and she executed a settlement deed under Ex.B.13 dated 14.11.1984.

The learned Trial Judge, considering the validity of the said settlement deed dated 14.11.1984, found that since the 1st defendant had not examined any of the attestors to the said document, the requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence Act was not satisfied. On the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge held that the plaintiff would be entitled to ?rd share in the property which is subject matter of the settlement viz., 2.47 acres in S.Nos.472 & 437/1. As regard the other two properties viz. 2.20 acres in S.Nos.435 & 440 and 1.34 acres in S.No.475/2, the learned Trial Judge concluded that the 1st defendant has not established separate source of income to show that he had purchased the said properties out of his own income. Considering the admission made by the 1st defendant as well as D.W.2 in their evidence that the 1st defendant was in the management of the properties of the joint family, since his father Ramasamy Gounder was unwell even from the