JUDGMENT :

This is a suit for partition, accounts and costs.

2. The plaintiff is one of the coparceners of the joint family, consisting of her father late P.L.Ramanathan @ P.L.Meenakshi Sundaram and her brother R.M.Sethu. Defendants 2 and 3 are the plaintiff’s mother and sister. The joint Hindu family of late P.L.Ramanathan @ P.L.Meenakshi Sundaram possessed several immovable properties at Chennai, Madurai and Kumbakonam, apart from the properties owned in Malaysia. The properties were purchased during the lifetime of plaintiff’s grandfather late Palaniappa Chettiar out of the joint family nucleus in the name of various members of joint Hindu Family of grandfather late Palaniappa Chettiar. Some of the properties of larger joint Hindu family of grandfather late Palaniappa Chettiar were divided and distributed to the joint Hindu family of his sons including joint Hindu family of P.L.Ramanathan @ P.L.Meenakshi Sundaram and few other properties still retain their character as properties of joint Hindu family of grandfather late Palaniappa Chettiar. Thus, all the assets and properties owned by P.L.Ramanathan @ P.L.Meenakshi Sundaram are properties traceable to ancestral wealth and none of the properties are self acquired properties of P.L.Ramanathan @ P.L.Meenakshi Sundaram and therefore, the plaintiff has vested right, title and interest over the properties as coparceners. She is entitled to 1/3 share in the properties of the joint Hindu family. Plaintiff’s father died on 10.04.1992 and plaintiff was aged about 17 years and was unmarried at that time. She got married in 1998. After the death of plaintiff’s father, first defendant started managing the joint family properties in India and in Malaysia and was maintaining the entire accounts. In view of the close relationship, neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2 and 3 have raised any issues. However, first defendant became very selfish and wanted to have all the wealth to himself. Second defendant, who is executrix of the Will of the plaintiff’s father was not even allowed to perform the duties as the executrix and first defendant kept her away from the affairs of the properties and assets.

3. Plaintiff’s father made a Will dated 04.03.1991 as his last Will and Testament. Apart from appointing family friend Valliappan @ Palaniappan @ Sinna Valieppan @ Valieppa Chettiar, as the executor of his will, he appointed his wife, the second defendant, as the executrix to act jointly and severally. Though the Will states that the executors shall pay and apply such sums according to the Chettiar Community customs as required for the marriage expenses, gifts and dowry for the plaintiff, when the second defendant wanted to take and apply such amounts from the assets of the plaintiff’s late father, first defendant did not allow her. The deceased father expressed his desire that the marriage of the plaintiff should be celebrated in a grand manner, but the first defendant stood in the way. However, second defendant conducted plaintiff’s wedding in a grand manner by incurring huge expenditure by borrowing. The Will was probated before the Court of Malaysia. It was known to the plaintiff that first defendant had alienated the Malaysian property and appropriated huge wealth to himself, without th