The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act and the determination of entitlement to shares in ancestral and self-acquired properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.96 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, dated 10.03.2016.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 10.03.2016 in O.S.No.96 of 2013. The appellant is the defendant.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the sister of the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the suit stating that the suit properties belonged to their father N.Ponnaiah and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Ponnaiah died on 04.12.2008 leaving behind his wife Deivanaiammal, son/ the defendant herein and daughter/the plaintiff herein as his legal heirs. So, each of the legal heirs became entitled to 1/3rd share. The mother of the plaintiff Deivanaiammal settled her 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff by way of a registered sale deed dated 25.03.2009 and put her in possession. The settlement is accepted by the plaintiff as well. The defendant started to give disturbances to the plaintiff's joint possession of the properties. After exchanging legal notice between the parties, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of 2/3 share and separate possession.

3.The defendant contested the suit by stating that the plaintiff was given jewels and other Shridhana articles during her marriage; since the defendant did not have any permanent income, he alone collected rent from the tenants of the suit property and due to some misunderstanding between himself and his mother, his mother executed a settlement deed in respect of her 1/3 share in favour of the plaintiff on 26.03.2009; however the plaintiff has not accepted the same; she had given assurance to the father that she would not claim any share in the family properties; on 31.01.2012, the mother Deivanaiammal registered a cancellation of the settlement deed dated 25.03.2009 and executed another settlement deed on 19.02.2012 in favour of the defendant; the defendant accepted the properties given to him by virtue of the settlement deed dated 19.02.2012; the plaintiff has no share in the suit property and hence, she is not entitled to get a decree as prayed for.

4. Based upon the abovesaid pleadings, the learned trial Judge has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiff has 1/3 share in the suit properties after the demise of her father Ponnaiah?

ii) Whether the Settlement Deed dated 25.03.2009 executed by Deivanaiammal in favour of the plaintiff is valid and acted upon?

iii) Whether the cancellation deed dated 31.01.2012 executed by Deivanaiammal cancelling the settlement deed dated 25.03.2009 is true and valid?

iv) Whether the Settlement Deed dated 19.04.2012 executed by Deivanaiammal infavour of the defendant is true and vlaid?

v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of 2/3 share and separate possession of the suit properties?

vi) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 were marked. On the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and forty three documents were marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.43.

6. At the conclusion of the trial and on considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge had passed the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 2/3share in the suit schedule property. Aggrieved over that, the defendant has preferred this Appeal Suit.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as items 1 to 4 of the suit properties are concerned, they are ancestral properties and items 5 and 6 are the properties purchased by the defendant's father by virtue of a registered sale deed; but it was from the income earned by both the defendant and