JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2009 made in A.S.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirupur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008 made in O.S.No.272 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupur.)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2009 passed in A.S.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirupur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008 passed in O.S.No.272 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tirupur.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit before the learned District Munsif, Tirupur, in O.S.No.272 of 2005, seeking the relief of partition, dividing the suit properties into 4 equal shares and also allot 1 such share to the plaintiff and for costs. The learned District Munsif, Tirupur, by judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008, had allowed the suit and gave direction for effecting the partition.

3. Aggrieved over the said findings, the first defendant, preferred an appeal, in A.S.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirupur, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008, passed by the learned District Munsif, Tirupur. By judgment and decree dated 20.07.2009, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, had allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Being dissatisfied over the same, the plaintiff in the suit, preferred this Second Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties, are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

5. The averments found in the amended plaint in brief, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3, are the daughters and son of the first defendant. Both the plaintiff and the third defendant have got married after Hindu Succession Amended Act. The suit properties, are joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Out of the joint family income derived from their ancestral properties, the suit properties and other properties have been purchased jointly on 11.12.1972 by the first defendant along with his brothers, namely, Subramaniam and Velusamy. At that point of time, the brothers of the first defendant lived as joint family and enjoyed the ancestral properties jointly. They have partitioned their joint family and ancestral properties only on 13.01.1995.

(ii) Subsequent to that, there was a partition among the first defendant and his brother Subramaniam on 05.03.1993 and in that partition, the suit properties have been allotted to the plaintiff and the defendants family. Ever since from the date of partition, the plaintiff and the defendants, are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(iii) The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share and the defendants are each entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. The defendants are refused for partition, hence, the plaintiff has caused a lawyer notice on 17.03.2005 to come forward for amicable partition. After receipt of the said notice, the first defendant sent reply dated 29.03.2005 with false and frivolous allegations. Hence, the suit.

6. The case of the first defendant, is as follows:

(i) It is true that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3, are the sons and daughters of the first defendant. The suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the first defendant and his two brothers, Subramaniam and Velusamy. They purchased the suit properties on 11.12.1972 from and out of their earnings. The alleged joint family had no income of any kind.

(ii) The first defendant and his two brothers worked in Metal Factories at Tirupur and Angeripalayam from the year 1960 and from which, they have saved considerable amount and by using the same, they purchased the suit properties. The first defendant and his brothers were engaged in brass vessels business at Perumanallur during