The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between ancestral property and self-acquired property in a partition suit, and the requirement for evidence to support claims of joint family income and contributions to property acquisition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C., praying against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2010 in O.S.No.108 of 2006 on the file of Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2) Salem.)

1. The suit for partition filed in respect of 2 items of immovable properties and 2 items of movable properties. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree in respect of first item of schedule which is an immovable property and disallowed the suit in respect of other items of properties in the schedule. As against the disallowed portion, particularly in respect of 2nd item of the schedule, which is land and building, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 3. In the appeal, the second plaintiff, who deposed, did not join the appellants, hence arrayed as 9th respondent. The tenants who were arrayed as Respondents 3 to 7 were given up.

2. Pending appeal, the first appellant/first plaintiff, who is the father of other sharers died. Since his legal representatives were already parties to the proceedings, memo filed to that effect and same was recorded. Two miscellaneous petitions C.M.P Nos.16467 and 16468 of 2021 were filed to receive additional documents, namely the wills executed by Rama Gounder on 26.12.2008 and 31.03.2011 and to permit the sole surviving appellant to raise additional grounds in view of the demise of Rama Gounder and his Wills dealing with the dispossession of his share.

3. The parties are related this way: Thiyagi Rama Gounder, the first plaintiff had four sons and one daughter. His two sons, Subramaniam and Devendiran are the Second and third plaintiffs respectively. His other two sons, Devarajan and Devanandam are the first and second defendants respectively. His daughter Devaki is the eight defendant. The tenants in occupation of the second item of the suit property are the Defendants 3 to 7.

4. According to the plaint, Thiyagi Rama Gounder (the first plaintiff) and his wife had four sons and one daughter. His wife Lakshmi ammal died on 17.03.1996. The first item of the suit property is an ancestral property. The first defendant in his income from milk business and contractor work purchased second item property in the name of the first defendant. The other family members also contributed to improve the second item of the suit property. Item Nos.3 and 4 are motor vehicles which stand in the name of the first defendant and they also form part of the joint family properties. In the second item property, the first plaintiff constructed building and established a wet grinder industries in the name of “Naveen Industries” along with his friend Satyamoorthy as a partnership firm. The capital for the industries was made by the family members pooling their resources. Later, Satyamoorthy was relieved from the partnership on payment of Rs.45,000/-. While so, without the consent of the plaintiffs, the defendants 2 and 3 had let out portion of the suit 2nd item properties to defendants 3 to 7 and collecting rent without sharing it with the plaintiffs.

5. Initially, the suit was laid claiming 1/5th share in the suit property by each of the plaintiffs without impleading the daughter of the first plaintiff. Later she got impleaded as 8th respondent and pleaded that she should also be given a share in the suit properties and apportioned accordingly.

6. The first defendant, in his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit properties. According to him, the suit properties are not ancestral property or properties purchased from ancestral nucleus. As far as the first item of the suit property, it was purchased under two different sale deeds. Initially, in the year 1958 one Peryathiammal purchased 77½ cents of land from Rama Gounder. Later, in the year 1966, Peryathiammal and Lakshmiammal jointly purchased 77 ½ cents of land. Subsequently, as per resurvey, the land was assigned new Survey Nos.48/7 C, 48/7 F, 48/7 E and 48/7 H and patta issued in the year 1972 in the name of Peryathi