The judgment established the principle that properties purchased from joint family funds are considered joint family property, and the validity of a will is determined by proof of due execution and the testator's intention.

The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. The suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction by them was allowed by the trial Court. On appeal preferred by the defendants, in A.S.No.55/1990 the trial Court judgment and decree was set aside by the first appellant Court hence, against the reversal judgment, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the aggrieved plaintiffs.

2. Gist of the dispute:

The subject matter of the suit is in respect of the properties mentioned as A and B in the plaint schedule purchased by Late Arumuga Pandithar at Kurkampattu Village, Ponnagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District and bequeathed to his second wife Periyammal (first plaintiff) and to his daughter Kunjammal (second plaintiff) born to his first wife (Angammal) through his Will dated 31.08.1977.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that, the suit properties are self earned property of Arumuga Pandithar. About 40 years prior to the suit, Arumuga Pandithar and his second wife (first plaintiff) left Vanawasi village and settled at Kurkampattu village, due to cruelty caused to them by first wife (Angammal) of Arumuga Pandithar and her son (first defendant). As barber by profession and nathaswaram player, out of his exertion Arumuga Pandithar purchased the suit property. The second plaintiff, who is the daughter of Arumuga Pandithar born to his first wife was subsequently driven out from the ancestral house at Vanwasi by the first defendant wife, who joined her father Arumuga Pandithar at Kurkampattu village and lived along with her father Arumuga Pandithar. The marriage of the second plaintiff was solemnized by her father Arumuga Pandithar. During his life time, Arumuga Pandithar wrote a Will dated 31.08.1977 bequeathing A schedule property to the first plaintiff and the B schedule property to the second plaintiff. Accordingly, after the demise of Arumuga Pandithar on 27.07.1979, the properties were succeeded by the plaintiffs and they became the absolute owners of the properties. They are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties paying kist. While so, the first defendant Angaiya Pandithar is the son of Late Arumuga Pandithar born to his first wife Angammal taking undue advantage of the fact that the first plaintiff is issue less and the second plaintiff has lost her husband and helpless, attempted to grab the property by force and threat during the month of April 1984. Hence, suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Angaiya Pandithar, S/o Arumuga Pandithar (first defendant) and two sons of the first defendant.

4. The contra case of the first defendant is that, the suit properties are not the absolute property of the plaintiffs or Arumuga Pandithar. The said property was purchased from out of joint family nucleus. The suit property was purchased by Arumuga Pandithar in his name as manager of the joint family. The sale consideration to purchase this property was derived from sale of a portion of the maniyam property given to the family and mortgage loan of Rs.5,000/- from one Kasim Sahib. The property being joint family property, Arumuga Pandiathar and his son (first defendant) jointly sold a portion of the maniyam property at Vanawasi village and jointly borrowed money through mortgage. Later, they both jointly sold 3acres of the joint family property adjustant to the suit property to discharge the mortgage debt. After the demise of Arumuga Pandithar, first plaintiff and first defendant jointly mortgaged the property and raised loan of Rs.5,000/- from one Kuttappan to discharge the debt arose to meet the funeral expenses of Arumuga Pandithar and sundry family expenses. Later, to clear the mortgage debt, they both jointly borrowed Rs.7,000/- from Appadurai on executing promissory note. The plaintiffs were never in dispute with regard to the nature of the property, the joint possession and enjoyment among the family members till the first plaintiff tried