The validity of a Will executed by a testator in sound mind is upheld, establishing self-acquisition of property over claims of joint family ownership.

ORDER :

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.85/2005 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Salem.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their original rankings in the Original Suit.

3. The suit is filed for partition and for declaring the partition deed dated 22.03.2021 stands in the name of the defendants 1 and 2, as null and void and for restraining the defendants 1 and 2 in any manner creating encumbrance over the suit property.

4. The plaintiff’s case in brief is as follows:

4.1 The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 are the sons and daughters of one R.C.Moorthy @ R.Chandramoorthy and they have constituted a Hindu Undivided Joint Family. The said R.C.Moorthy @ R.Chandramoorthy is the Kartha of the joint family. The joint family indulged in a business. The said R.Chandramoorthy was one of the partners of Purshothaman and company and out of the income derived from the joint family business, the said R.Chandramoorthy is looking after the entire family affairs of the joint family. The suit schedule property was purchased in the name of R.Chandramoorthy as Kartha of the joint family under the registered sale deed dated 10.09.1951. The suit property has been purchased by the joint family out of the joint family nucleus and being enjoyed by all the joint family members without any hindrance. The said R.Chandramoorthy died intestate on 10.11.1981 leaving behind his wife Sakunthala and the plaintiff and the defendants as the legal heirs. The mother of the plaintiff, Sakunthala died on 01.09.1998 and the plaintiff and the defendants became the lawful owners of the suit schedule property and are in common possession and enjoyment of the same and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to 1 / 7^th share in the suit schedule property.

4.2 After the death of Sakunthala, the defendants 1 and 2 who are the male legal heirs of R.Chandramoorthy started to behave indiscriminately against the plaintiff and the other defendants. Therefore the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 6 have demanded partition of the suit joint family property. While so, during the first week of April, 2005, the plaintiff came to understand that the defendants 1 and 2, in order to defeat the lawful share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property, are trying to alienate the same to one Duraisamy and when the plaintiff question about the unlawful activity, they behave in a disruptive manner and finally refused to accept her lawful share and trying to alienate the same as they are alone having right over the suit property. Hence the suit.

5. The case of the first defendant in brief

5.1 The suit is false, frivolous and unsustainable in law. There was no joint family and the said R.Chandramoorthy was never the Kartha and was only the father and head of the family. There was nothing to constitute the joint family and the joint family did not indulge in any business and Purushothaman and Company was not a joint family business. The suit schedule property is a self acquired property of R.Chandramoorthy and it was allotted to his name in individual capacity. The said R.Chandramoorthy died testate on 10.11.1981 and left the registered Will dated 08.07.1981 bequeathing his properties in favour of his wife Sakunthala to be enjoyed by her till her lifetime and thereafter to the defendants 1 and 2 who are the sons of R.Chandramoorthy. Sakunthala died on 01.09.1998. As per the Will, the defendants 1 and 2 have partitioned the suit schedule property on 22.03.2001 and the revenue records are also mutated in t