The main legal point established is the entitlement of a legal heir to a share in the property under Muslim Law and the liability for construction costs based on possession and entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 made in A.S.No.6 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1997 made in O.S.No.514 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 made in A.S.No.240 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1997 made in O.S.No.514 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.)

These second appeals have been filed as against the common judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 made in A.S.Nos.6 & 240 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1997 made in O.S.No.514 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

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

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

3.1. The suit is filed for partition. The suit property originally belonged to Zainab Khatun W/o. Abdul Ghufoor. They had three sons viz., G.Mohamed Hussain, G.Mohamed Omar and G.Abdul Jalleel. The said Zainab Khatun died intestate in the year 1968, leaving behind her three sons. They are being the legal heirs to succeed the suit property as tenants-in-common. They were in join possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenants-in-common. One of the sons viz., G.Mohamed Omar leased out the suit property to the 10th defendant and collected rent from the tenant on behalf of his and two brothers. One of the brother viz., G.Abdul Jalleel had settled his undivided 1/3th share in favour of his two other brothers absolutely by a registered settlement deed dated 27.09.1969. Therefore, the two brother G.Mohamed Hussain and G.Mohamed Omar are entitled to have half share in the suit property. In fact, G.Mohamed Omar was collected rent from the 10th defendant for the lease on behalf of G.Mohamed Hussain.

3.2. While being so, on 27.12.1984, G.Mamed Omar died intestate leaving behind his wife i.e., the plaintiff herein, as his sole legal heir to succeed to 1/4th share of his half share in the suit property. As the plaintiff is an issueless widow and in Muslim law, she is entitled to have 1/4th share in the suit property. Balance 3/4 share was inherited by other two brother G.Mohamed Hussain and G.Abdul Jalleel. After demise of her husband, the sons of G.Mohamed Hussain, i.e., the defendants 2 to 5 were collected rent on behalf of their father, the plaintiff and another brother. While being so, G.Mohamed Hussain died intestate in the year 1985, leaving behind his wife, the first defendant herein and his sons i.e., the defendants 2 to 5 and daughters 6 to 8. After demise of said G.Mohamed Hussain, the plaintiff, another brother G.Abdul Jalleel and the defendants 1 to 8 were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenant-in-common and the defendants 2 to 5 were collecting the rent from the 10th defendant. Thereafter another brother G.Abdul Jalleel also died intestate in the year 1988 leaving behind his wife, the ninth defendant herein to succeed his share in the suit property.

3.3. The suit property originally ad measuring 6400 sq.ft., of vacant land with tiled house and the same was leased out to the 10th defendant for his timber business. The plaintiff used to visit the suit property and she lastly visited in January 1989. When the plaintiff visited suit property in the first week of June 1989, there was a pucca terraced building constructed in the suit property. On enquiry, she came to understand that the defendants 2 to 5 colluded with the 10th defendant had constructed the terraced building without getting consent from the plaintiff. In fact,