The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties derived by the father through a partition deed are to be treated as his self-acquired properties, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, thereby influencing the determination of the plaintiff's share in the suit properties.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2008 made in A.S.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 made in O.S.No.16 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2008 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2008 on the file of First Additional District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.16 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

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

3. The defendants in O.S.No.16 of 2004 are the appellants in this second appeal.

4. Suit for partition.

5. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the mother, the first defendant is the wife and the second defendant is the daughter of Kandasamy who died on 30.01.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The suit properties had been allotted to Kandasamy by way of a registered partition deed dated 14.11.2000 entered into between him and his father Ramasamy Gounder and since the date of partition, he is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till his demise and thereafter his legal heirs namely the plaintiff and the defendants had been in the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Due to a family quarrel, misunderstanding arose between the plaintiff and the defendants. Therefore, it has become impossible to continue the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore the plaintiff demanded the defendants to effect the partition and allot the due share in the suit properties and as the defendants have not responded positively, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

6. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that it is true that the plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Kandasamy and also true that the suit properties allotted to Kandasamy by way of the partition deed dated 14.11.2000 and according to the defendants, the suit properties are ancestral in character and therefore by birth, the second defendant is entitled to half share in the ancestral properties and in the properties allotted under the partition deed, the deceased Kandasamy would be entitled to only half share and the second defendant is entitled to half share and therefore to say that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in the suit properties is incorrect and against law and the plaintiff would be entitled to obtain only 1/6 share in the suit properties and further according to the defendants, the plaintiff is not willing to live along with the defendants and in the presence of the well wishers of the family, obtained a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash and relinquished her share in the suit properties to the second defendant and therefore after the oral relinquishment, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek and claim any share in the suit properties and the plaintiff is not in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and hence according to the defendants, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to lay the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.W.1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants', D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. No document has been marked.

8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, the trial court was pleased to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6 share in the suit properties and accordingly granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff. Impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court, the first appeal has been