The burden of proof regarding the relationship with the deceased and entitlement to property shares lies with the parties, and the court's decision is influenced by the evidence presented and the legal provisions related to proof of title and legal heirship.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned I-Additional District Judge, Salem in O.S.No.151 of 2011, dated 19.12.2014.)

1. The Appeal Suit is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014 in O.S. No.151 of 2011, on the file of the I-Additional Court, Salem, in and by which the suit was filed by the respondents herein, for partition of the suit property and to allot 2/10 share each to the plaintiffs was decreed by the Trial Court.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff/Sarasu, the second plaintiff/ Neela, late Subramani represented by his legal heirs the third and fourth plaintiffs, and the first defendant/Thangaraj, second defendant Periamma and along with other one more person namely Ammasi (since deceased as a bachelor), were the children of Periyanna Nadar and Pappathi Ammal. The suit property was purchased by Pappathi Ammal, by a registered Sale Deed dated 07.12.1967. The said Periyanna Nadar died and thereafter, Pappathi Ammal passed away on 03.06.1968. The suit property was in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 & 2. In the year 2011, the plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant is attempting to settle the property on the third defendant, his Son. Therefore, they issued a legal notice on 22.04.2011 demanding the partition and separate possession of the suit property. However, there was no positive response. However, on verification from the Sub-Register Office, they came to know that without any right over the title whatsoever, a Settlement Deed dated 02.02.2011 was executed by the first defendant in favour of his son i.e., the third defendant. Hence the present suit.

3. The suit is resisted by the defendants. The first defendant filed a written statement. It is the case of the defendants is that Periyanna Nadar married one Pappathi Ammal. There were only three children to this couple. The first defendant/Thangaraj and two other brothers by name Periyannan and Kaliyaperumal were only born to them. However, the said Periyannan and Kaliyaperumal, died in the year 1966 and 1975 respectively. Periyanna Nadar had an extra-marital relationship with one Pappu @ Parvathi, and the first plaintiff/Sarasu, the second plaintiff/ Neela, one late Subramani, the husband of the third plaintiff and the father of the fourth plaintiff, and the second defendant / Periyamma, are all born to the said Pappu @ Parvathi. Therefore, the suit property being the absolute property of Pappathi Ammal, the plaintiffs, as well as the second defendant, are not at all legal heirs of the deceased Pappathi Ammal. The first defendant was only in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and he had settled the property in favour of his son namely T.Rajavelu, the third defendant in the suit. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :-

"1) Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1 and 2, 3rd plaintiff's husband Subramani are the sons and daughters of the Pappathi Ammal?

2) Whether the plaintiffs are having 6/10 shares in the suit properties?

3) Whether the 1st defendant is alone is the legal heir of the Pappathi as stated by the defendant No.1?

4) Whether the settlement deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 is valid?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and partition as prayed for?

6) To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to? "

5. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. One Kuppusamy, who is the neighbour and resident of the Village was examined as P.W.2. One Rameshkumar, the Tahsildar, who issued the legal heir certificate, was examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the Sale Deed dated 17.12.1967 by which the suit property was purchased by Pappathi Ammal, was marked as Ex.A-1. The Settlement Deed, dated 02.02.2011