The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of joint family properties and the entitlement of the parties to a share in those properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010 passed in O.S.No.147 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai.)

1. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.147 of 2004 before the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai against the respondents/defendants for passing of a preliminary decree claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant to restore the electricity connection to the rice mill belonging to the joint family property with costs.

2. The trial Court after trial, dismissed the suit with cost. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

3. The brief facts of the amended plaint reads as follows:

The second defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff and the 7th defendant is his sister. The first defendant is their father and the 10th defendant is the mother. Singara Konar and Kannusamy are the brothers of the first defendant. The second defendant is the graduate. The first defendant managed the joint family. Half of the suit properties are ancestral properties. The remaining properties were purchased by the first defendant in his name and in the name of joint family members from the joint family nucleus. Agriculture is the main avocation. The first defendant and his brothers running a rice mill in Item Nos.59 and 60 of the suit properties and the licence stands in the name of the first defendant. The said rice mill was managed by the plaintiff and the income was handed over to the defendants. The first defendant and his brothers have two buildings in Natham. During partition, the first defendant was given the rice mill and his brothers were given one house each. The marriage of the second defendant was performed in a grand manner and as his wife and children died, he contracted a second marriage and had three sons out of the said wedlock. The second marriage was performed in a simple manner. It was agreed that 10 sovereigns of gold jewels were given during their marriage by the defendants. The properties purchased in the name of the first defendant was allotted to him during the partition in the year 1982. The plaintiff runs the rice mill and the defendants doing agriculture. From the joint family income and the loan obtained from the Bank the defendants purchased the property in their name and the second defendant purchased the property in the name of his wife and mother -in-law. Due to the dispute regarding the marriage of plaintiff's sister's daughter, the first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.1106 of 19909 before the District Munsif Court, Pudukottai for permanent injunction. In the suit, the plaintiff is the second defendant and the second defendant is the first defendant. It is not true that the properties are their properties, since the first and second defendants purchased the said properties in their name. The suit properties are joint family properties purchased from joint family income. As per the compromise, the plaintiff has to run the rice mill for a period of one year and the second defendant has to run the rice mill next year and when the plaintiff's turn comes, the second defendant given a complaint before the Electricity Board stating that licence stands in his name and to cancel the electricity connection. Accordingly, the electricity connection was disconnected. Due to the disputes between them, the plaintiff resides in a shop premises opposite to the rice mill from the year 1990. In the year 1990 itself, the suit properties were partitioned amongst the plaintiff and the defendants and there is no debt over the joint family property. The tractor belongs to the joint family was sold for Rs.1,00,000/- and the amount was taken by the defendants 1 and 2 and also taken 1000 bags of rice. Hence, the plaintiff claimed the relief of preliminary decree for 1/3rd share in the suit property and for