The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of joint family properties, the establishment of partition claims, and the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 in the context of family property disputes.

All these appeals arise out of one suit namely OS.No.210 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Erode. The said suit was filed by the appellant in AS. No. 534 of 2015 seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit properties.

2. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in respect of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, while dismissing the suit in respect of the 'C' Schedule property Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the 1st defendant in OS No.210 of 2011 has come forward with the appeal in As No.1005 of 2015 and the 2nd defendant in the said suit has come forward with AS.No.960 of 2015. The plaintiff has filed AS No.534 of 2015. The genealogy of the family is as follows:

The gist of the plaint allegations in OS. No.210 of 2011 is as follows:

3. According to the plaintiff, in a partition that took place between him and his brother Ganapathi Gounder on 06.02.1972, the suit A schedule property measuring about an extent of 13.5 acre was allotted to him. From and out of the income and out of the sale proceeds of the portion of the property allotted to him in the partition, the plaintiff had purchased the suit B Schedule property on 13.07.1979. On 02.06.1974 the plaintiff purchased item No.1 of the suit 'C' Schedule property again from and out of the income from the property allotted to him in the partition dated 06.02.1972, in the name of his two sons namely D1 and D2. The second item of the suit 'C' Schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of defendants 1 and 2 on 22.06.1974. The third item of the 'C' Schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of defendants 1 and 2 on 11.12.1981. The defendants 1 and 2 did not contribute any amount for the said acquisition. It is also claimed that they have no source of income.

4. According to the plaintiff the purchases were made in the name of the defendants out of love and affection he had for them. Therefore, the plaintiff would claim that the suit properties are all joint family properties in which the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 4 are each entitled to 1/5th share. The 5th defendant Kuppayammal is added as a party subsequent to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff would further plead that the 1st defendant got married in the year 1985, and since he wanted to establish a separate Mess, at the instance of elders and prominent persons in the locality, a family arrangement was affected in the year 1992 and the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were exclusively in possession of certain items of suit properties. But there was no division by meats and bounds. The arrangement that was made in the year 1992, according to the plaintiff, is only a oral arrangement for convenient enjoyment by the parties.

5. The 1st defendant, according to the plaintiff, had been demanding possession of the first item of A Schedule property. He had also claimed that no land should be allotted to the plaintiff in the event of a partition. The 1st defendant, even attempted to trespass in the 1st item of A Schedule property which was in his possession. Therefore, the plaintiff had demanded for a partition on 18.09.2009. Though the defendants 2 to 4 had agreed for such a partition the 1st defendant did not come forward for a amicable partition. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the suit for partition became necessary.

6. The defendants 2, 3 and 4 practically supported the case of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant alone contested the suit. According to him the nature and character of the suit A Schedule property as joint family property was admitted. He would however, claim that there was a