The claimant must prove the existence of joint family properties; mere familial ties do not suffice for partition claims.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

A.S.No.196 of 2023 has been filed, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.9 of 2016, in so far as dismissal of the suit, concerning items 3 to 8 of the schedule mentioned properties are concerned. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal.

2.Insofar as A.S.No.419 of 2023, the said appeal has been filed, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.9 of 2016, that is the very same suit. This appeal is at the instance of the defendants 2 and 3. Considering that both the appeals arise out of one and the same suit, judgment and decree, both the appeals have been heard together.

3.I have heard Mr.A.E.Chelliah, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.Vasantha Kumari Chelliah and Mr.R.Prathaban, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in A.S.No.196 of 2023 and the 1^st respondent in A.S.No.419 of 2023 and Mr.M.Sridhar, learned counsel for Mr.A.M.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.419 of 2023 and the respondents 1 and 2 in A.S.No.196 of 2023 and Mr.V.J.Arulraj, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 in A.S.No.196 of 2023 and the respondents 2 to 6 in A.S.No.419 of 2023.

4.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per the rank before the trial Court.

5.The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the properties set out in the schedule to the plaint, numbering 10 items. The trial Court decreed the suit in part, declaring the plaintiff's 1/4^th share in the items 1 and 2 and dismissing the suit in respect of the other items. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in respect of items other than 1 and 2, has filed A.S.No.196 of 2023 and the defendants 2 and 3, challenging the decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of even items 1 and 2, have filed A.S.No.419 of 2023.

6.Pleadings:

(a) The plaint in brief:

The suit items are situate at Elambalur village. The suit properties are joint family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 8. The suit item 2 was purchased by the father of the plaintiff, Nallu @ Periyasamy on 29.10.1957 and the suit 1^st item was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff, Chinnapillai on 09.04.1952. The plaintiff's father was blessed with four children, namely Makkali @ Mathathali @ Mekkali, Chellamuthu, Mariyayee and the plaintiff, Chinnaiyan. Makkali's wife is the 1^st defendant and their children are defendants 2 and 3. The 4^th defendant is the wife of Chellamuthu. The defendants 5 and 6 are daughters and the 7^th defendant is the son of Chellamuthu.

(b) The plaintiff's father, Nallu @ Periyasamy died intestate and since the properties are joint family ancestral properties, without partition, the plaintiff is entitled to share in the said property. From and out of the income of suit items 1 and 2, the 3^rd item of the suit property was purchased in the name of Makkali. The said property has been blended along with items 1 and 2 of the suit properties and enjoyed and treated only as joint family properties. The plaintiff's mother and brothers mortgaged some of the items of the properties with Co-operative Agricultural Bank and obtained loan on 20.05.1968 by executing a mortgage deed. Subsequently, the plaintiff's mother died in the year 1970 and the suit properties have ever since been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his brothers and sister. The 4^th item of suit property was purchased from and out of the income from items 1 to 3, however in the name of the 1^st defendant. The 4^th item of the property is also joint family and ancestral property, without any partition.

(c) Further, from and out of the income from the joint family properties, items 5 to 9 were also purchased in the n