The properties in question are ancestral under Hindu law, entitling family members to coparcenary rights, with the need for documentary evidence to challenge ancestral claims.

JUDGMENT :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.46 of 2019 dated 01.10.2024 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 320.12.2018 in O.S.No.446 of 1999 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, the appellant/1st defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The averments contained in the plaint, as projected by the plaintiffs are as follows:

(i) According to the plaintiffs, the 3rd plaintiff is the wife of 1st defendant-Ranganathan. Out of their lawful wedlock, plaintiffs 1 and 2 were born to them. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the sisters of the 1^st defendant. The defendants 1 to 4 are children of one Lakshmana Gounder and Perumayee.

(ii) The properties mentioned in the A schedule of the plaint are ancestral joint family properties of Lakshmana Gounder and by way of registered partition deed dated 11.12.1985, Lakshmana Gounder and his brother divided their ancestral properties. As per partition Deed, plaint B schedule properties were allotted jointly to Lakshmana Gounder and his son, the 1st defendant herein. From and out of joint family funds, Lakshmana Gounder purchased item 1 and 2 of plaint B schedule properties, but in the name of 1st defendant. Further, out of joint family funds, the first defendant has also put up a power loom factory and the same is also running profitably.

(iii) It is averred in the plaint that the 3rd plaintiff and 1st defendant have also begot a male child by name Rajkumar on 31.05.1983. On the advice of Doctors that begetting further children will develop further complications to 3rd plaintiff, she was sterilized. When the male child Rajkumar was about 4 1/2 years, due to brain fever, he died on 01.01.1993.

(iv) After the death of male child, the 1st defendant began to live with one Anjali Devi who is his concubine. Unable to met out the harassment and ill- treatment given by the said Anjali Devi to the 3rd plaintiff and her children, she went to her father's house and, she for herself and on behalf of her minor children as guardian, caused legal notice on 30.06.1999 calling upon the defendants 1 to 4 and their mother Perumayee to effect partition of the joint family properties, for which, a reply was sent by the 1st defendant.

(v) Lakshmana Gounder died intestate about two years ago and his wife Perumayee also died intestate on 17.06.1999. The 3rd defendant, who is the sister of 1st defendant also died intestate and un married.

(vi) Due to the death of Lakshmana Gounder and Perumayee, their shares devolved upon plaintiffs and defendants. The 3rd defendant died un married, asper the provisions of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, she is a co-parcener along with the 1st defendant and their father.

(vii) Thus the first defendant has become entitled to 100/180 shares out of the first defendant's share, the plaintiffs are entitled to each 1/4th share and each of the plaintiffs become entitled to 25/180th shares and the first defendant to a 25/180 shares. The 2nd defendant Pachaiammal is entitled to 10/180 share and the 4th defendant is entitled to 40/180th shares.

(viii) Hence, the plaintiffs seeks for the following reliefs:

(a) directing the division of the suit properties into 180 equal shares and allot 75 shares to the plaintiffs by making provision for appointment of Commissioner and passing of final decree.

(b) pass a final decree allotting 75 such divided shares to the plaintiffs;

(c) to give direction to delivery of separate