The burden of proof in establishing relationships and the nature of properties in partition suits is crucial, and the lack of substantiating evidence can influence the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.84 of 2005 dated 12.10.2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80 of 2004 dated 14.12.2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006 passed in A.S.No.84 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2004 passed in O.S. No. 80 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet.

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

3. Suit for partition.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the respondents 1 and 2, despite service of notice, having failed to appear either in person or through counsel and on being called and remaining absent, they had been set exparte.

5. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are the daughters of Vadivelu Gounder and born through his second wife Chinnaponnu. The defendants 1and 2 are the sons and the third defendant is the daughter of Vadivelu Gounder born through his first wife. The suit properties belonged to Vadivelu Gounder and he died in the year 1990. After his demise, the plaintiffs and the defendants have the right of inheritance over the suit properties as the legal heirs of the deceased Vadivelu Gounder. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to secure 2/5 th share in the suit properties and as the defendants are indulging in the alienation of the suit properties to deprive the share of the plaintiffs, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

6. The second defendant contended that the relationship of the plaintiffs and the Vadivelu Gounder has to be established by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' father never married Chinnaponnu and Chinnaponnu was already married to one third party and she is a widow and further the plaintiffs also do not belong to Hindu community and the plaintiffs failed to implead the other Lrs of Vadivelu Gounder and the suit properties are not the self acquired properties of Vadivelu Gounder and as they are the ancestral properties even assuming that the suit properties had been purchased in the name of Vadivelu Gounder, it is only from the income derived from the joint family properties, the suit properties had been acquired and therefore they partake the character of ancestral properties. The plaintiffs have never enjoyed the suit properties at any point of time. The patta for the suit properties stand in the name of the defendants. Even if the plaintiffs have claimed their right to share/partition, the same is lost by ouster and the plaintiffs have approached the legal aid forum and enquiry was conducted therein and the plaintiffs had agreed to withdraw the claim after receiving the amount from the defendants and suppressing the same, the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs to make unlawful gain. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. No document has been marked. On the side of the defendants, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced.

8. On an appreciation of the available materials placed on record, the Courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiffs' case and held that they are entitled to get 2/5th share in the suit properties and accordingly granted the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Impugning the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the second defendant has preferred the second appeal.

9. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.

a) Whether the Appellate Court and the Lower Court is right in deciding the issue after coming into conclusion that the relationship was not proved?

b) Whether the Appellate Court and the Lower Court is