IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that properties must be inherited or acquired from a joint family nucleus to be classified as ancestral under Hindu law, rejecting claims based solely on joint acquisition.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 73 of 2004 dated 19.07.2018 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur.

Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2018 in O.S. No. 73 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur.

1. The defendants 2 and 13 in O.S. No. 73 of 2004, a suit for partition are on appeal. They are aggrieved by a decree for partition granted by the Trial Court, declaring that the plaintiff would be entitled to 9/32 shares in the suit Items 1 to 7, 1/8th share in suit Items 8 to 11, except the items covered by sale deeds dated 06.09.2007, 16.04.2008, 07.02.2007, 15.11.2006 and 28.04.2004, which are marked as Exs.A39 to A44 in the suit.

2. The plaintiff sued for partition contending that the suit properties belonged to the joint family consisting of the 1st defendant, B. Arunagiri, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, who are the sons of Arunagiri and the daughters of the 1st defendant, who were impleaded as defendants 14 to 18. The other defendants are tenants of the properties in question.

3. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant belongs to a trading family. The 1st defendant and his brothers, B. Pallappa Chetty, B. Subbaraya Chetty, B. Velayudha Chetty and B. Viswanathaiah constituted a Hindu Joint Family and they had divided the joint family properties amongst themselves under a document of partition dated 25.09.1961. In the said partition, Items 1 to 7 of the suit properties were allotted to the 1st defendant. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the properties described as Items 1 to 7 in the suit schedule are ancestral joint family properties, in which, he would be entitled to 9/32 share as a coparcener. It was also claimed that the 1st defendant and his brothers were jointly doing yarn business, silk weaving, twisting factory business and flour mill business. It was contended that after partition, the 1st defendant continued the said businesses with the help of the machineries which were allotted to him at the partition and the other properties were acquired from and out of the income from the said businesses.

4. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant and his brothers, after the partition started a partnership business in 1964 in the name of B. Viswanathaiah and Co. at Bangalore which was in trading silk. It was claimed that joint capital of the said business was contributed by the brothers from and out of the income earned by the joint family properties. The 1st defendant became a partner in the said partnership as a Kartha of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons. The capital for the business flew from the income from the joint family properties, which was allotted to the 1st defendant in the 1961 partition. It was also claimed that various buildings that were standing in the name of the 1st defendant were constructed out of the income from the joint family business. It was contended that the 1st defendant ventured into Automobile business wherein, also he was successful. It was also claimed that the certain properties that was purchased in the name of the mother of the 1st defendant were enjoyed as joint family properties and after the death of the mother in the year 1955, the other brothers of the 1st defendant had alienated their shares. However, the share of the 1st defendant remained.

5. It was claimed that huge income was received by the 1st defendant from the joint family properties. Therefore, on the contention that all the properties were joint family properties, the plaintiff sought for 9/32 share in the suit items and for 1/4 share in the income from the Kalyana Mandapam. A prayer for declaration that several sale deeds executed by the 1st and 13th defendants are null and void was also sought f