JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, dated 06.12.2018, in O.S.No.38 of 2017, granting 3/4th share from ‘A’ Schedule Item Nos.1 to 15, 25 and 26 and the entire ‘B’ Schedule property to the plaintiffs, the 2^nd defendant in the suit has filed the present Appeal.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3.The plaintiffs and the 2^nd defendant are the daughters of the 1^st defendant. The defendants 3 to 18 are the purchasers of some of the suit A-Schedule properties from the 1^st defendant, on various dates.

4.1.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the entire A-Schedule properties are ancestral properties of the 1^st defendant and out of the joint family nucleus, he has purchased the B-Schedule property, which is a vacant site and thereafter, the 1st defendant has put up a lodge in the B-Schedule property out of the joint family nucleus. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, on the date of purchase of the B-Schedule property on