The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of recent legal positions to modify the shares allotted for joint family properties in a partition suit.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: These Appeal Suits are filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 32 of 2002 dated 24.11.2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur.)

1. These two appeals are filed as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.32 of 2002 dated 24.11.2003.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:-

(i) The plaintiffs are the husband and wife and their only son is Diravidamani, whose wife is the first defendant. Their son met with an accident and died on 21.02.2001. The second defendant is supporting the first defendant and the third defendant is the partnership firm.

(ii) The suit properties are the joint family property. Item Nos.1 to 4 were purchased in the name of the deceased Diravidamani. Thereafter, Item No.6 was also purchased out of the funds of the joint family and registered in the name of the first defendant and other items are also joint family property. After the death of the son of the plaintiffs, there was a misunderstanding between the plaintiffs and the first defendant in dividing the suit properties. Hence, the suit.

4. Denying the fact that the suit properties are joint family properties, the first defendant contended that during the life time of Dravidamani, the suit properties had already been partitioned and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share. The second defendant also disputed the claim of the plaintiffs and denied the allegations of the plaintiffs in support of the first defendant. It is also stated by the first defendant that Item No.6 is her absolute property. The third defendant has also filed documents to that effect that the first defendant was never a partner in the company and the third defendant is not a necessary party in the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the suit properties are ancestral properties belonged to the plaintiffs and their deceased son?

(2) Whether Item Nos.1 and 2 properties shall be partitioned?

(3) Whether the deposit of Rs.4 lakhs made in the third defendant's company, which is shown as Item No.5 is true?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/4 share in the suit property?

(5) Whether the second and third defendants are necessary parties to the suit?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

(7) To what other reliefs?

6. Based on the above findings, on the side of the plaintiffs P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked and on the side of the defendants D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D13 were marked.

7. On the basis of the evidence and materials, the trial Court found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to partition in respect of the movable property in Item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Similarly, the trial Court has also dismissed the suit in respect of Item No.6, holding that the same is a self acquired property of the first defendant, however, granted preliminary decree in respect of Item Nos.7 to 14 allotting 1/4 share to the first defendant and 3/4 share to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the same, these appeals came to be filed.

8. A.S.(MD)No.850 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiffs themselves against the rejection of their claim for partition in respect of the vehicles particularly item Nos.1, 2 and 4 and also against the dismissal of the suit in respect of Item No.6. The first defendant has filed an appeal in A.S. (MD)No.169 of 2006 challenging the finding of the trial Court granting partition in respect of Item No.13, treating it as a joint family property, despite the fact that it is a self acquired property.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record.

10. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals that the