The mere description of property as ancestral does not establish its nature; evidence of purchase and settlement deeds is essential for determining ownership.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 passed in O.S. No. 162 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the original suit.

3. The appellants are the defendants in suit O.S. No. 162 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking partition of their one-third share in the entire suit property.

4. The defendants contested the suit, and after hearing both sides, the learned trial judge partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial court granted the plaintiffs one-third share in the plaint A-Schedule properties and in items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 of the B-Schedule properties. However, the suit was dismissed with respect to items 3, 6, and 8 of the B- Schedule properties. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants have preferred the present first appeal.

5. The brief facts of the case: The plaintiffs' mother, Kanniammal, and the defendants are the daughter and sons of one Duraisamy Naicker and Vengammal. Kanniammal passed away intestate on 14.11.2000, leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. Her husband, Jayaraman, had predeceased her. After Kanniammal’s demise, the plaintiffs were brought up under the care of their maternal grandfather, Duraisamy Naicker, and their maternal grandmother, Vengammal. They were also permitted to reside in a portion of the A-Schedule property, and the income from the B-Schedule property was shared with them. On 09.12.2002, Duraisamy Naicker passed away, leaving behind his wife Vengammal, the defendants, and the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Their grandmother, Vengammal, also passed away in 2007. Following this, the plaintiffs and defendants constituted a Hindu joint family and were jointly in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiffs remained in occupation of A-Schedule property and were paying taxes and electricity charges. However, defendants 1 and 2 colluded together and displayed a hostile attitude toward the plaintiffs. They refused to agree to an amicable partition despite receiving notice. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The plaintiffs also reserved their right to claim one- third share of the rent collected by the defendants from the A and B- Schedule properties. They contended that the properties were ancestral in nature and that they were entitled to one-third share in the suit properties.

6. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit, admitting the relationship but denying the plaintiffs’ claims over the properties. They asserted that the B-Schedule property was the self-acquired property of their father, acquired through a sale deed dated 22.12.1980. They further stated that item 1 of the B-Schedule property, along with items 2 to 8, was purchased by their father through another registered sale deed (Document No. 2784/80). From the time of purchase, their father enjoyed the property as its absolute owner. Out of love and affection, their father, Duraisamy Naicker, executed a settlement deed on 21.09.1993 in favour of the first defendant, transferring items 6 and 8 of the B-Schedule property. From that time onwards, the first defendant became the absolute owner and was in possession of these properties. In respect of items 3, 6, and 8, Duraisamy Naicker executed settlement deeds in favour of the first defendant, who, in turn, executed a settlement deed dated 31.05.2004 in favour of second defendant. From that time onwards, the second defendant enjoyed possession of these items. Hence, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

7. Before the trial court, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the plaintiffs side, 1^st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A18 were marked. On the defendants' side, 2^nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B.3 were marked.

8. The trial