JUDGMENT :

Prayer :- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.1999, in A.S.No.192 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Coimbatore confirming the decree and judgment dated 27.08.1998 in O.S.No.567 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.1999, in A.S.No.192 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Coimbatore confirming the decree and judgment dated 27.08.1998 in O.S.No.567 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

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

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

3.1. The suit is filed for partition. The plaintiff got married with one, R.Suresh Kumar on 13.11.1988. The defendants 1 and 2 are the father in law and the mother in law of the plaintiff and after marriage, the plaintiff and her husband were living together with the defendants 1 and 2 as hindu undivided family. The first defendant is the manager of the hindu undivided family. The plaintiff's husband died on 31.12.1991. The first defendant filed suit as against his brothers and subsequent purchaser for partition claiming his share in the family property in O.S.No.1440 of 1958, which was decreed in his favour. After compromise, final decree was passed, in which the first defendant was allotted a share and he sold out the western portion of his share, namely the property situated in old door No.11/36, new door No.17/35 comprised in TS.No.2/1139 at Easwarankoil Street, Coimbatore on 02.11.1961 in favour of one K.Krishnan Achari for the purpose of purchasing another house property. He also sold out the eastern portion of the said property to his own brother, B.Adhikesavapillai by registered sale deed dated 10.01.1963. Out of those sale proceeds, the first defendant purchased a building at No.9 in Ramalinga Nagar, II layout at Coimbatore by the registered sale deed dated 29.08.1966. Thereafter he also put up construction. Therefore, the house property, namely the suit schedule 'A' property which is purchased from the joint family nucleus and hence it is ancestral property available for partition between the plaintiff's husband and the first defendant.

3.2 In fact, during life time of her husband, he was owning an industry named Steel Tech and was provided funds to a tune of Rs.28,700/- by pledging and selling his jewels. He also purchased household articles along with car and two wheeler from his earnings from the industry. She further submitted that her sister in law, i.e., the sister of her husband, got married and she used to stay in the schedule 'A' mentioned property very often. The defendants 1 and 2 have let the ground floor to the defendants 3 and 4 for monthly rent at Rs.1,300/- and Rs.950/- for two portions. The entire seedhana articles along with 35 sovereigns of gold jewels were pledged by her husband and he spent the entire money lavishly and also provided fund to purchase the suit schedule 'A' property. Therefore, the plaintiff demanded return of her seedhana articles, for which panchayat was held on various dates and so many persons participated in the panchayat on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the defendants 1 and 2. In the panchayat, the defendants 1 and 2 compelled the plaintiff to sign in the papers and blank stamp papers purporting to deprive off her legal right. When the plaintiff refused to do so, she was not given any share under the ancestral property, the self acquired property of her husband and also seedhana articles were not returned to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff caused legal notice on 14.03.1992 calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 for partition and also return the seedhana articles. Though the defendants 1 and 2 replied by the reply notice dated 17.04.1992 with false and untenable allegati