Legal heirs are entitled to equal shares in self-acquired property unless a valid family arrangement is proven, which requires documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, passed in AS No.74 of 2003, dated 23/03/2004 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Srivaikundam in OS No.40 of 2002, dated 22/01/2003.

2. The plaint:- The suit property originally belongs to one Subbiah Pillai @ Ayyapillai Thevar. The first plaintiff is the wife. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the defendants are the childrens. Subbiah Pillai @ Ayyapillai Thevar died on 20/10/1999 intestate. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs. They inherited the property and in possession as joint family. On 13/05/2000, the defendants tried to interfere into the possession. The defendants have 1/5^th share in the property. So, the suit is laid for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 3/5^th share and for permanent injunction, costs.

3. The statement filed by the second defendant adopted by the first defendant:- It is denied that the property originally belongs to Subbiah Thevar @ Ayyapillai Thevar. The suit is bad for partial partition, since the house where the second defendant residing is not included in the plaint. The plaint 1^st item in the 4^th schedule situated in Survey No.170/2A/2 measuring about 0.36.0 Hectares belongs to the defendants by way of purchase, in which the plaintiffs and others have no right or interest. After the death of Subbiah Thevar @ Ayyapillai Thevar, there was a family arrangement in the first week of November 1999. By that family arrangement, the first plaintiff agreed that she is not entitled any share and she must be maintained by the defendants till her life time. In so far as the second plaintiff is concerned, even during the lift time of Subbaih Thevar @ Ayyapillai Thevar, she was provided with sufficient sreedhana and married. So, she agreed that she is not having any share. The third plaintiff converted to Muslim, married a Muslim girl and living with her. He also relinquished his share in the property. So, by that family arrangement, the entire properties owned to the Subbiah Thevar @ Ayyapillai Thavar belongs to the defendants. Apart from that, other customary denials were made.

4. Additional statement:-The particulars of amendment and the suit property is not properly valued.

5. On the pleading of both parties, The trial court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/5^th share in the suit properties?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction?

(3) Whether the 1^st item in the 4^th schedule exclusive belongs to the 2^nd defendant?

(4) Whether the suit properties are undervalued?

(5) to what relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to?

6. Before the trial court, on side of the plaintiffs, one witness was examined and 10 documents marked. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined and one document marked. Through Court, CW1 was examined and Ex.X1 has been marked.

7. At the conclusion of the trial process, the trial court dismissed the suit without costs. Against which, Appeal in AS No.176 of 2008 was filed before the Principal District, Tiruchirappalli, which also came to be dismissed, concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial court.

8. Against which, this second appeal is preferred by the appellants.

9. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

(1) Whether the court below are justified in holding that as the defendants had failed to prove his title to the suit properties, the title of the plaintiffs has to be accepted?

(2) Whether the courts below are justified in holding that the trial court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit without considering the material evidence available in the suit?

(3) Whether the courts below are justified in holding that the parties to the suit were in joint possession on no evidence?

10. The 1^st substantial question of law was wrongly framed, so, it is recasted as follows:-

(1) Whether the finding of the trial cou