The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties acquired from individual earnings of family members cannot be treated as joint family properties unless deliberate abandonment and blending are proved.

JUDGMENT :

[PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment dated 09.10.2018 in O.S.No.218 of 2010, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai.]

[PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment dated 09.10.2018 in O.S.No.202 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai.]

The plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2010 and who is also the sole defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2015 has come up with these Appeal Suits aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit for partition in respect of 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties and decree passed against him in the suit for bare injunction.

2. The suit in O.S.No.218 of 2010 was filed by the appellant herein for partition and the suit in O.S.No.202 of 2015 was filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.218 of 2010 against the plaintiff therein for permanent injunction. Since a joint trial was conducted and the evidence was recorded in common in O.S.No.218/2010, the parties are referred according to their rankings in O.S.No.218 of 2010 for the sake of clarity.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of these Appeal Suits, are as follows:-

3.a. The plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2010 is the son of 1st and 2nd defendants, and defendants 3 to 5 are his brothers. It is the case of the plaintiff that 'A' Schedule Property is ancestral property of the family. The said lands were cultivated by the entire family including the plaintiff. The plaintiff had secured a job in U.A.E. and from and out of his earnings, he had sent substantial amounts to the the 1st defendant/father and the 1st defendant had acquired several properties in the name of 1st defendant as well as in the name of defendants 2 to 5, besides 3 houses had also been constructed with the help of fund provided by the plaintiff. The said ancestral house and the ancestral properties are described as 'A' Schedule property. The properties purchased in the name of defendants from the funds provided by the plaintiff are described as item 'B' and 'C' in the Schedule. Hence, it is the contention of the plaintiff that all the properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the family. The plaintiff also took defendants 3 to 5 to U.A.E. for employment. However, they returned back to India to look after the properties of the family.

3.b. Though B and C schedule properties were acquired out of the funds provided by the plaintiff, he himself had treated those properties as joint family properties along with the defendants. However, when the dispute arose between the parties it was agreed in the negotiation held in the month of January 2010 that the plaintiff shall be allotted 1/4th share in all the properties. When the matter stood thus the 1st defendant has filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit B and C-Schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 are deemed to be in joint possession, though the plaintiff parted with amounts to purchase the properties in the name of the 1st defendant. Hence the suit for partition.

3.c The suit in O.S.No.202 of 2015 filed by the 1st defendant for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2010, his men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment.

4. Denying that suit B and C-Schedule properties purchased from out of the funds provided by the plaintiff, it is the contention of the defendants 1, 2 & 4 that those properties are absolute properties of the defendants. In fact, 1st defendant went to Dubai in 1976 and had been working there for two years. Subsequently, he shifted his employment to Singapore for one year and thereafter, he held up at Iraq for about 2 years. He had worked hard for the welfare of the family as a father initially, thereafter his elder son 3rd defendant went to foreign countries for employment in 1983 and to UAE in 1995. He worked there for more than seven years. The you