The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim for partition and entitlement to a share in the suit properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2010, made in O.S.No.108 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II at Salem – insofar as it is against the appellant herein.)

1. The Appeal Suit is filed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2010, made in O.S.No.108 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II at Salem, thereby partly decreed the suit for partition.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The suit is filed for partition. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, the first defendant and their brother viz., Kuppusamy Mudaliar, born to one K.A.Annamalai Mudaliar. The suit properties were purchased by their father. After his demise, the plaintiff's brother was managing the suit property and also gave assurance to give her share in the suit property. However, after demise of her brother, his legal heirs viz., the defendants 2 to 9 refused to allot her share in the suit properties. Hence the suit for partition claiming 1/3 rd share in the suit property.

4. Resisting same, the defendants filed written statement stating that there was an oral partition in the year 1970 between the father and son viz., K.A.Annamalai Mudaliar and Kuppusamy Mudaliar. In pursuant to the oral partition, the father had taken cash for his share and the entire suit properties were allotted to his only son viz., Kuppusamy Mudaliar. After demise of the said Kuppusamy Mudaliar, the defendants 2 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Insofar as the property item No.5 is concerned, it is a self acquired property and it doesn't belong to the joint family property. Item No.6 to 9 are concerned, they are not inexistence.

5. On the basis of the pleading, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the properties are joint family property?

(ii)Whether the properties were not divided?

(iii)Suit is maintainable or not?

(iv)What is the share of the plaintiff?

(v)Cost and other relief?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, she examined P.W.1 & P.W.2 and marked documents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.19. On the side of the defendants, they examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and marked documents in Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14. On considering the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court partly decreed the suit and allotted 1/6 th share in respect of the suit properties in item Nos.1 to 4 alone and dismissed the relief upon the partition in respect of the item Nos.5 to 11. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred this appeal suit before this Court.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties. The entire properties were purchased by her father out of the income derived from his business. After demise of her father, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, his legal heirs viz., the plaintiff, the first defendants, her brother Kuppusamy Mudaliar and her mother are entitled to have ¼ share. After demise of her mother, in the remaining properties, she is entitled to have 1/3 share. When the suit properties are selfacquired properties, there is no question of partition between the plaintiff's father and his son Kuppusamy Mudaliar, since he could not have pre-existing right to claim partition during their father's life time. The defendants are also failed to prove that there was an oral partition between the plaintiff's father and her brother. Even assuming that there was oral partition, no revenue records were mutated as per the oral partition and no change of patta in favour of Kuppusamy Mudaliar. When the plaintiff is entitled to have share in the suit properties in item Nos. 1 to 4, she is also entitled to have sh