Joint ownership of properties must be substantiated by evidence of contributions, and allegations of benami transactions require clear proof regarding the financial arrangements and intent of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

(M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.)

The defendants 2, 4 to 6 have preferred the present first appeal before this Court. The trial Court by its judgement and decree dated 22.11.2016 decreed the suit in-part by granting the relief sought for partition of 1/6^th share in items 1 to 23 of the suit properties and 1/8^th in items 24 to 26 of the suit properties and permanent injunction. The relief of partition sought for with respect to the items 15 to 23 of the suit properties was declined. Aggrieved by the decreeing the suit with respect to the items 1 to 14 and 24 to 26 of the suit properties, the defendants 2 & 4 to 6 have preferred the present appeal. The plaintiff has not preferred any appeal with respect to the rejection of his claim regarding items 15 to 23 of the suit properties. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

2.Brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are brother. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are sons of one Chinnakaruppa Thevan @ Chinna Thevar and the 7^th defendant. The plaintiff is working as Postmaster and his wife is working as a Teacher. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 were doing snacks business jointly at Andhrapradesh. During the said period they purchased immovable properties, which is shown as Items 1 to 14 and 23. From 23.08.1993 to 24.03.1997, they have purchased items 1 to 14 and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. When the plaintiff was living joint family, the defendants purchased suit schedule properties items 15 to 23. Item 26 is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's father and his father purchased item 24 and 25 on 14.02.1994. The said Chinnakaruppa Thevar died on 14.02.1998. The second defendant lodged a complaint during May 2007 and September 208 against the plaintiff. It was agreed that the allocation of shares in the suit properties will be made in the presence of the village elders. The plaintiff executed a registered gift deed dated 29.04.2009 in favour of the defendants 2, 4 to 6 with respect to an extent of 33 cents in S.No. 118/7. The defendants received a sum of Rs.5,11,000/- from the plaintiff as settlement amount. The fourth defendant on 29.04.2009 executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to a house site and on the same day the defendants 2, 4 to 6 executed declaration deed to the plaintiff promising to vacate the ground floor of the house. The defendants trespassed into the house of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff. On 16.11.2009,he lodged a complaint and on 29.05.2010 the plaintiff's wife lodged a complaint against the defendants 2, 4 to 6. On 23.10.2008 and 25.05.2009, the defendants 2, 5 and 6 sent legal notices to the plaintiff for which the plaintiff sent a reply notice dated 23.07.2009. Hence, the suit.

3.Brief case of the third defendant is as follows:-

The plaintiff and the defendants went to Andrapradesh during 1987 for manufacturing and selling Murukku. Their father led the family and spent from joint family income. Father required the presence of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff returned to Tamilnadu during 1995. the plaintiff and defendants remained as joint family and the third defendant has also contributed their self earnings to purchase properties.

4.Brief case of the fifth defendant is as follows:-

The defendants 2, 4 to 6 doing snacks and murukku business in Andrapradesh. Out of the income derived from the bu