The court affirmed that properties devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are absolute and not ancestral, emphasizing that mere assertions cannot establish joint family character without supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

1. This Original Suit Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the suit for partition was decreed only in respect of the Schedule ‘C’ property and dismissed insofar as the other schedule properties are concerned. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that, one late Srihari Naidu was the owner of certain properties, including the Schedule ‘B’ property. He is the father of the first defendant and the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. The Schedule ‘A’ property was originally allotted to Srihari Naidu and subsequently stood in the name of the first defendant. The Schedule ‘C’ property stood in the name of the mother of the plaintiffs. The Schedule ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘G’, and ‘H’ properties stood in the name of the second defendant, and the Schedule ‘F’ property stood in the name of the third defendant.

3. Claiming that all the schedule properties are ancestral in nature and belong to the joint family, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their alleged shares. The learned Single Judge, framed the following issues:-

(i)whether the plaintiffs have paid the appropriate Court Fee in respect of the Suit Claims?

(ii) Whether the Schedule A mentioned property is an ancestral property or absolute property of the first defendant which he was entitled to deal with as per his wish?

(iii) Whether any Decree can be passed in respect of Schedule B and C properties which have been sold year before filing of the present suit?

(iv) Whether Schedule I property (Bank Account) has any Ancestral Income deposited in the same and if so, to what extent?

(v) Whether Schedule E to H are self acquired properties of the second and third defendants?

(vi) To what other reliefs?.

The learned Single Judge upon consideration of the materials on record, granted partition only in respect of the Schedule ‘C’ property and dismissed the suit in respect of the remaining properties. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. V. Srimathi, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. BFS Legal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs and the second defendant are the children of the first defendant and that the third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. It was submitted that the Schedule ‘B’ property was purchased by Srihari Naidu on 16.05.1955, which was the source of income for purchase of the other properties in Schedule and, upon his demise, it devolved as ancestral property. It was contended that Srihari Naidu was allotted the Schedule ‘A’ property by the Madras Co-operative House Construction Society on 24.12.1956 and that, although the sale deed was subsequently executed in favour of the first defendant on 26.11.1983, the property retained its ancestral character, as the same was purchased from the income of 'B' Schedule. It was also contended that the Schedule ‘C’ property stood in the name of the mother of the plaintiffs, who died intestate on 08.07.1997, and therefore devolved upon her legal heirs.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs had co