The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the property, whether ancestral or self-acquired, is crucial in determining the entitlement of parties to seek partition.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2000, in A.S.No.57 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Nagapattinam, confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.01.2000 in O.S.No.120 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.

1. This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2000, in A.S.No.57 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Nagapattinam, confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.01.2000 in O.S.No.120 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :-

3.1. The suit is filed for partition. The suit property originally belonged to one, Vadivelu, who is the grand father of the plaintiffs. The said Vadivelu and Chandrahasu are brothers. The plaintiffs’ father is one, Ramanujam and the fourth defendant is the said Chandrahasu’s wife. The defendants 5 to 10 are the children of the fourth defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 are sisters of Vadivelu. The defendants 11 to 18 are the tenants of the suit property. After demise of the said Vadivelu, the plaintiffs’ father and the fourth defendant were jointly enjoying the suit property as common, since they were elder members of the family. While being so, the plaintiffs’ father also died and thereafter the plaintiffs along with the fourth defendant commonly enjoying the suit property. The defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 are not residing in the suit property. The defendants 5 to 7 already got married and are residing with their husband’s house respectively. In the suit property, there are nine huts, in which the plaintiffs are residing in one hut and the fourth defendant is residing in part of another hut. The other eight huts were leased out in favour of defendants 11 to 18 for monthly rent. In fact, while the said Ramanujam was alive, the rental income was equally shared by the plaintiffs father and the fourth defendant. After demise of the said Ramanujam, the fourth defendant refused to share the rental income received from the defendants 11 to 18. Therefore, the plaintiffs demanded partition and also caused notice to the fourth defendant on 30.06.1998 claiming 5/16 share, which was returned by the fourth defendant. Hence, the suit.

4. The fourth defendant resisted the plaintiffs case by filing written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 5 to 9 and 11 to 18 stating that the tenth defendant is not the brother of the defendants 8 and 9 nor he is the son of the fourth defendant. He is the son of Chandrahasu born through his first wife. Further the suit property is not an ancestral one as enjoyed by the said Vadivelu and Chandrahasu. This suit property was purchased by one, Duraisamy on 16.11.1922 and thereafter it was inherited by his daughter by name Pattayee. She conveyed the property in favour of Chandrahasu for the valid sale consideration. Therefore, it is a self acquired property by the said Chandrahasu. Neither the Vadivelu nor his legal heirs do not have any right over the property. Further the defendants 1 to 3 are also not having right over the suit property and they are not entitled for any share. In fact, the first plaintiff was inducted as tenant on the monthly rent of Rs.20/- by oral agreement and other tenants are continuously paying rent to the fourth defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any relief as prayed for and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. In support of the plaintiffs’ case, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and six documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.23 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and the submission made by the learned counsel, the trial Cour