R. SUBBIAH, J

1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 51 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry @ Karaikal is the appellant in this appeal. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/first respondent herein for a preliminary decree of partition. By the Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2010, the trial court held that the plaintiff/first respondent herein is entitled to 1/5 share except in respect of the items 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 of the Plaint ‘A’ schedule property and also 1/5 share in the B Schedule Properties by applying Coromandal Law, which was in force by then in the Union Territory of Puducherry. The trial court also held that the first defendant/second respondent herein, who is the mother of the plaintiff and second defendant, is entitled to right of residence in the 1st item of the A Schedule mentioned property and after her death, the plaintiff and defendants shall effect division of the said item of the property equally.

2. The appellant in this appeal is the second defendant in the suit. The first respondent in this appeal is the plaintiff, who instituted the suit. The second respondent in this appeal is the first defendant in the suit and she is the wife of late. Ramasamy Mudaliar/mother of the plaintiff and second defendant/appellant herein. The respondents 3 to 10 in this appeal were arrayed as defendants 3 to 10 in the suit. Respondents 3 and 4 in this appeal are the wife and minor son of the deceased brother of the first defendant/appellant. Respondents 6 to 8 are the Manager of the respective Banks where the deceased Ramasamy Mudaliar had deposited some amount in the form of fixed deposit. The ninth respondent is the Head Postmaster of Karaikal Head Post Office where the deceased Ramasamy Mudaliar was maintaining a savings bank account. The tenth respondent in this appeal is the purchaser of item No. 7 and 11 of the suit properties from Ramasamy Mudaliar when he was alive.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent herein is that her father Ramasamy Mudaliar was a permanent resident of Karaikal and he married Mrs. Ranjitham @ Deivanai, first defendant in the suit. Due to the wedlock between the deceased Ramasamy Mudaliar and the first defendant, four children were born. The second defendant/appellant is the elder son, the other son Jeevanandam died, the plaintiff is the first daughter. The fifth defendant in the suit namely Indira is yet another daughter born to the the deceased Ramasamy Mudaliar and the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, her father owned several immovable properties which are set out in ‘A’ schedule of the plaint and during his life time, he has deposited altogether a sum of Rs.14 lakhs with the defendants 6 to 9, which was derived from and out of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, during his life time, her father Ramasamy Mudaliar has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with sixth defendant, Rs.2,00,000/- with the seventh defendant, Rs.1,00,000/- with the eighth defendant and Rs.10,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit with the ninth defendant in the suit. Further, approximately, 35 sovereigns of gold jewels were given by her father Ramasamy Mudaliar to her mother, the first defendant. The aforesaid movable properties are morefully described as ‘B’ Schedule in the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the plaint mentioned ‘A’ schedule properties are not the self-acquired properties of Ramasamy Mudaliar but he came to acquire the same through a Will executed by her grand father. According to the plaintiff, six years prior to the filing of the suit, due to difference of opinion between her father Ramasamy Mudaliar and her mother/first defendant, the plaintiff was forced to go to Pondicherry and worked there in a private school and because of the adament attitude of her father Ramasamy Mudaliar, her mother/first defendant and her brother/second defendant, she even went