The main legal point established in the judgment is that women have equal rights in ancestral properties, irrespective of sreedhana, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming discharge of a loan amount.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 23.04.2007 passed in A.S. No.107 of 2006, on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore, reversing the decree and judgment dated 28.09.2006 passed in O.S. No.333 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.)

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.333 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore. She filed the said suit against the respondents/defendants for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to her and for costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

i. The 1st defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. The suit properties morefully described in the plaint belonged to their father Sambasivam by virtue of a partition deed (Ex.A1) dated 17.07.1965. Ever since the date of partition, the said Sambasivam was in possession and enjoyment of the same.

ii. One Nageswari Ammal, the mother of the defendants 2 and 3, is also the sister of the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant and she died leaving behind the defendants 2 and 3 as her legal heirs. Her husband also expired.

iii. Since the 1 st defendant did not give the plaintiff her share in the income from the suit properties, the plaintiff issued a notice to him dated 27.03.2002, a copy of which was marked as Ex.A2.

iv. The 1st defendant sent a reply dated 22.04.2002 (Ex.A3), which according to the plaintiff contained false allegations. She, therefore, filed the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the 1 st defendant on the following grounds:

i. The suit properties are joint family properties of the 1st defendant and his father Sambasivam.

ii. The plaintiff and Nageshwari Ammal were given in marriage in the year 1987 and were given valuable articles and jewels as sreedhana.

iii. Sambasivam (father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant) purchased an extent of 540 sq. ft. in T.S. No.1576 of Manjakuppam, Cuddalore District, through a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1997 (Ex.B1) and treated the said property as joint family property.

iv. The plaintiff and the deceased Nageshwari Ammal have relinquished their right in the joint family properties as they have been substantially given sreedhana properties during their marriage.

v. Late Sambasivam, during his life time, borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from Mayavaram Finance and various other persons for the purpose of constructing a house in the suit property and also to meet out his medical expenses as he was admitted as an inpatient in Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The 1st defendant alone discharged the entire loan amount and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit properties.

5. The defendants 2 and 3, who are the son and daughter of late Nageshwari Ammal, remained absent before the trial court and were set ex parte.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3 share in the suit properties?

2) Whether the suit is maintainable?

3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

7. In the trial court, the plaintiff examined herself and one another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The 1st defendant examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.

8. The learned trial court judge, after full contest, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and passed a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties into three equal share and to allot one such share to the plaintiff vide his decree and judgment dated 28.09.2006 on the following grounds:

 i. Samba