The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on documentary evidence and independent witness testimony to establish marital status and entitlement to joint family property.

1. Suit for partition and separate possession.

2. The second defendant is the appellant, who lost the case before the lower appellate court and has filed the present Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in the lower court.

4. The averments contained in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The first plaintiff is the wife of one Manokaran who passed away on 06.08.1990 and the defendants 2 to 5 are the sons and daughters of the said Manokaran. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming one-third share in the 'A' schedule property and Item Nos. 1 to 9 and 13 belonging to the joint family of Narayanasamy Naidu/first defendant therein and his two sons are claiming half share in Item No.10 and one-fifth share in Item Nos.11 and 12 and one-third share in the 'B' schedule property movables.

(b) The first defendant had two sons viz., Rajendiran and Manokaran and two daughters viz., Rajalakshmi and Vasantha. The suit items absolutely are the properties of the second defendant and his brother Manoharan who got them by deed of exchange. The suit item Nos.11 and 12 belonged to one Muniammal, the wife of Narayanaswamy Naidu and mother of defendants 2 to 4. Manokaran died on 06.08.1990 intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs to succeed his property as Class-I legal heirs. The plaintiffs further averred that the first defendant is the karta of the joint family and the other members of the family viz., Rajendiran and deceased Manokaran have been living as the joint family members. As per the Hindu Law, Manokaran and defendants 1 and 2 are each entitled to one-third share in the joint family property. The second defendant and the deceased Manokaran were the absolute owners of the Item No.10 by way of their exchange deed on 03.03.1987 (Ex.A6). Thus, Manokaran and Rajendiran are each entitled to half share in the property. The said Manokaran's half share in the suit item will devolve on the plaintiffs on his death.

(c) The suit Item Nos.11 and 12 were absolutely the properties of Muniammal, mother of Manokaran and Rajendiran, wife of the first defendant by her purchase dated 17.06.1970. But mother of the second defendant died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 and Manokaran to succeed her estate. So, the defendants 1 to 4 and Manokaran are each entitled to one-fifth share in the property. Thus the plaintiffs are entitled to one-fifth share in the suit Item Nos. 11 and 12 that stands in the name of Muniammal.

(d) After the death of the Manokaran, the first plaintiff was with the joint family of defendants 1 and 2 for some time. But subsequently, the first plaintiff is living separately with her children struggling for her day-to-day life. So the first plaintiff demanded for a partition and separate possession of her due share in the schedule property. But the same was denied. Hence, the first plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession.

(e) The first plaintiff further averred that Item No.13 of the suit properties belonged to the joint family property. The first defendant seems to have executed a gift deed in respect of Item No.13 in favour of the third defendant on 17.08.1992. The gift in respect of joint family is void ab initio. Hence, the plaintiffs are not liable to set aside the gift deed. The said gift deed will not give any right to the third defendant.

(f) The plaintiffs further averred that there are no debts for the joint family but a sum of Rs.15,000/- is due from one Krishnappa Naidu of Elumedu village and a sum of Rs.12,000/- is due from Muthaiammal of Ezhumedu village. In these amounts, the plaintiffs are entitled to one-third share. There are also movables in the family which is described as 'B' schedule, in which, the plaintiffs are entitled to one-third share in the property.

5. The averments contained in the written statement, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The second defendant denied the relationship set out in the plaint. However, the