The court affirmed the plaintiffs' entitlement to a 1/3 share of ancestral property based on admissions by co-sharers, despite the absence of direct documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The 7th defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff and the other defendants are the respondents.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to, as they were referred in the trial court.

3. The brief facts leading to the instant first appeal are as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to Chinnammal. Chinnammal’s husband is Munusamy. They had two sons namely Chinnathambi @ Chinnapaiyan, Vedhachalam Naicker, and one daughter Govindammal. The plaintiffs are the children of Govindammal. Defendants 2 to 6 are the children of Chinnathambi @ Chinnapaiyan. Vedhachalam Naicker is 1st defendant.

4. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6 created a fabricated sale deed in favour of the 7th defendant who is daughter-in-law of 1st defendant, therefore the same is not binding upon them and their share in the suit property.

5. The plaintiffs claim that their mother, Govindammal, is entitled to a 1/3 share in the suit property. As such, they have filed the suit for partition, seeking a partition to divide the suit property into three equal shares and for allotment of 1/3 share to them.

6. The third defendant, who is one of the son of Chinnathambi @ Chinnapaiyan, filed a written statement admitting the plaintiffs’ right to have a 1/3 share in the suit property. This written statement was adopted by defendants 2, 4, 5, and 6. However, the subsequent purchaser 7th defendant strongly disputed the plaintiff’s claim.

7. The 7th defendant contends that Munusamy and Chinnammal had only two sons, namely Chinnathambi @ Chinnapaiyan and Vedhachalam Naicker. He would assert that Govindammal was not the sister of Vedhachalam and Chinnathambi. It is his further submission that Chinnathambi’s half-share was sold by Chinnathambi and his legal heirs. Similarly, Vedhachalam sold his ½ share through a sale deed dated 31.01.2007. Accordingly, the 7th defendant claims that she is the sole and absolute owner of the entire suit property and prays for the dismissal of the suit.

8. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined two witnesses and marked five documents. On behalf of the defendants, the 7th defendant's husband was examined as D.W.1, and nine documents were marked.

9. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

(extracted as it is)

10. On the above issues, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s mother, Govindammal, is a legal heir of Munusamy and Chinnammal, and granted a decree for partition, allotting a 1/3 share to the plaintiffs, further, the trial court declined the 7th defendant's claim of adverse possession. However, under the principle of equity, the trial court ordered that the shares of defendants 1 to 6 may be allotted to the 7th defendant. In short, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for.

11. Aggrieved by this decision, the 7th defendant preferred the instant appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr.G.Senthilkumar and the learned counsel for the defendants Mr.P.Santhaseelan were heard. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

13. The learned counsel for the 7th defendant vehemently contended that the plaintiffs failed to prove her relationship between Govindammal and the defendants 1 to 6. He would further submit that since the suit property is ancestral in nature, the plaintiff's being the descendants of a female legal heir, has no right over the ancestral properties. It was further contended that the trial court without considering these aspects, erroneously granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

14. Mr. G. Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, strongly contended that defendants 2 to 6 categorically admitted the relationship between the plaintiffs’ mother, qua Govindammal, and their father, qua Chinnathambi @ Chinnapaiyan, as well as Vedhachalam Naicker. He further contended that the 7th defendant, who is none other than the daughter-in-law of Vedhachalam Naicker alone denied the relationship solely to usurp the entire property. In