JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the reversing judgment dated 22.07.2013 made in A.S.No.45 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam and restore the judgment dated 21.09.2005 made in O.S.No.77 of 2004 on the file of the Court of District Munsiff Court, Maduranthakam and allow the above second appeal.)

1. The defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants. The first respondent and his mother Pooraniammal filed a suit for partition claiming 7/18 share in the suit property. The Trial Court granted preliminary decree for partition of 11/36 share in favour of 1st plaintiff Pooraniammal, 6/36 share in favour of 2nd Plaintiff/1st Respondent, 6/36 share in the suit property in favour of defendants 1 and 3, 3/36 in favour of second defendant and 2/36 in favour of defendants 4 and 5. Aggrieved by granting of decree in respect of items 17 to 20, the appellants preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court insofar as items 17 to 20 are concerned and set aside the decree for partition in respect of items 17 to 20. In other respects, the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 2 to 5 have come by way of this second appeal.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is the wife of one deceased Kannan and the second plaintiff is the son of Kannan. The defendants are other legal representatives of the said Kannan and suit properties item 1 to 17 are self acquired properties of Kannan. After his death, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to share in the said properties left out by Kannan, since they are all sons, daughters and Class I heirs of deceased sons Palani and Harikrishnan. Therefore, the first plaintiff Pooraniammal and 2nd plaintiff Saravanan claimed 4/18 and 3/18 share respectively and laid suit for partition jointly claiming 7/18 share.

3. The defendants filed a written statement contending that there were other properties which had not been included in the plaint, purchased in the name of Pooraniammal by deceased Kannan. It was further contended that Pooraniammal had no independent source of income to purchase the property in her name and those properties were purchased by Kannan out of his own funds. The said properties were described in the written statement of the defendants. Those properties in items 17 to 20 were treated as joint family properties and a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the Court below.

4. Before the trial Court, the 2nd plaintiff Saravanan was examined as PW.1 and the First plaintiff Pooraniammal was examined as PW.2. Four documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs as Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendants, the 4th defendant was examined as DW.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3.

5. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the first plaintiff Pooraniammal had no exclusive right over items 17 to 20 of the suit properties and the said properties were also available for partition. Accordingly, the trial Court granted preliminary decree for partition as mentioned above in respect of all the 20 items including four items over which the share was claimed by the defendants.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam. Along with the said appeal, the plaintiffs also preferred an application in I.A.No.191 of 2012 for marking two documents namely Ex.A5 dated 27.11.2004 settlement deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of Revathy, wife of the second plaintiff and Ex.A6 settlement deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of second plaintiff. The first plaintiff Pooraniammal executed those two settlement deeds in respect of items 17 to 20 in favour of Revathy and second plaintiff. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of