The court confirmed equal inheritance rights for siblings over self-acquired property despite claims of relinquishment without written evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V.Sivagnanam, J.

These Second Appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.Nos.30 and 45 of 2004, dated 18.02.2005 on the file of Sub Court, Karur reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.489 of 2001, dated 23.02.2004 on the file of Principal District Munsiff Court, Karur.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

3.The defendants in O.S.No.489 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur are the appellants herein in both the Second Appeals.

4.The plaint averments in brief are as follows:-

The fact of the case is that the plaint schedule properties are owned by Veerapa Gounder. The first defendant and the plaintiff are brother and sister. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Nallamal is the wife of Veerapa Gounder. The property is the self acquired property of Veerappa Gounder. Veerappa Gounder has died intestate. Therefore, his legal heirs Nallammal and the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to the properties. Nallammal has also died intestate leaving the plaintiff and the first defendant as the legal heirs. Since the property is the self acquired property of Veerapa Gounder, the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to ½ share of the properties. Therefore, they filed the suit for passing preliminary decree for ½ share in the plaint schedule properties.

5.The defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The defendant specifically denied the contention in the plaint and further contented that Veerappa Gounder has purchased the property from the income of the ancestral property and the plaint schedule property is the joint family property. It is not self acquired property of Veerappa Gounder. After the death of Veerappa Gounder, the plaintiff and the first defendant are equally entitled for ½ share in the property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for only ½ share, besides the plaintiff has orally relinquished her ½ share to the first defendant a long back. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share over the plaint schedule property and thus pleaded to dismiss the suit.

6.On the basis of the above said pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration: -

7.Before the trial Court, in support of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and one Mani examined as P.W.2 and 6 documents have been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and 13 documents have been marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B13.

8.The trial Court after considering the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and the evidence on record decreed ¼ share to the plaintiff and thus passed the preliminary decree as the plaintiff is entitled for ¼ share in the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by this Judgment and Decree, the plaintiff has filed a suit in A.S.No.30 of 2004 and the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2004.

9.On considering the evidence on record, the first appellate Court has allowed the appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2004 and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.489 of 2001, dated 23.02.2004 and modified and granted preliminary decree of ½ share to the plaintiff and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.30 of 2004 and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant in A.S.No.45 of 2004. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has filed a Second Appeal before this Court.

10.This Court while admitting the Second Appeal has framed the following substantial questions of law :-

1.Whether the 1^st Appellate Court not erred in holding that the suit properties are self acquired properties and the existence of joint family property not formed the nucleus for acquisition of the suit property?

2.Whether the 1^st Appellate Court erred in not holding that the Appellant/Defendant discharged the onus of proving t