Jointly held family properties can be classified as ancestral, particularly when the purchase is funded by the joint family's income, despite claims of individual contribution.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2013 made in A.S. No.68 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, wherein the appellant herein, who filed the Suit before the Sub Court, Bhavani in O.S. No.26 of 2006 dated 25.06.2013, filed an appeal. In fact, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for partition and for permanent injunction. The trial Court partly decreed the Suit and aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in A.S. 68 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode and the appeal was dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the Plaint are as follows:-

The Plaintiff is the mother of the defendants. The 1^st item of the Suit properties is the ancestral property of the Plaintiff and the defendants. The said first item of the Suit property was allotted to the share of husband of the Plaintiff through a Partition Deed dated 01.03.1982 between his brothers. The 2^nd item was purchased by the Plaintiff and her husband Nachimuthu on 30.05.1996 by contributing the sale price equally by them. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to ½ share and after demise of her husband, she is entitled to 4/6 share in that property and the defendants are each entitled to 1/6 share over the 2^nd item of the property. In the 1^st item of the property, she is entitled to 1/9 share and the defendants are entitled to 4/9 share each. The Plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession of the property. When the Plaintiff, demanded the partition, the defendants denied for the partition.

3. The brief averments of the Written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:-

The Suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendants denied all the allegations in the Plaint, except to those that are specifically admitted herein. The averment that the 2^nd item of the Suit property was purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and her husband is true, but the Sale price was not contributed by the Plaintiff and she is not entitled to 4/6 share over the 2^nd item of the property. In fact, the Plaintiff is only entitled to 1/9 share over the property. The 1^st item of the Suit property is an ancestral property of his father Nachimuthu. The 2^nd item of the property was purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and her husband out of the joint income derived from the 1^st item of the property. The Plaintiff has no separate income to contribute ½ share of the sale price for the purchase of the 2^nd item of the property. The Plaintiff, the defendants and their father are the members of the Undivided Hindu Joint Family. Therefore, the items 1 and 2 properties are ancestral in character. Therefore, the Plaintiff is only entitled to 1/9 share and for the remaining 8/9 shares, each defendant is entitled to 4/9 share over the said properties. Therefore, they have no objection to grant decree for partition of 1/9 share to the Plaintiff.

4. Based on the above said pleadings and after hearing both sides, the trial Court has framed the following issues

Issues:

a. Whether the second item of the Suit properties purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and her husband Nachimuthu jointly on 30.05.1996 is their self acquired property or it has got only the character of ancestral property?

b. Whether the Plaintiff is enti