Joint family properties must show evidence of shared ownership; individual earnings negate claims to partition.

JUDGMENT :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.132 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court at Tiruchirappalli are the appellants herein. The suit was filed by them seeking partition and separate possession of 3/5 share in the suit properties, along with costs of the suit. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs are the daughters of the first defendant and sisters of the second defendant.

2. The defendants appeared and contested the plaintiffs' claim for partition and separate possession. By judgment dated 02.11.2016, the suit was dismissed, necessitating the filing of the present Appeal Suit. O.S.No.132 of 2014 [Principal District Court at Tiruchirappalli]:-

3. The plaintiffs contended that the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint had been purchased by the first and second defendants from a corpus generated by the cash received in lieu of the relinquishment of interest by the plaintiffs' father in ancestral properties. They contended that the properties were purchased solely from the monies available from the ancestral corpus fund and in the name of the plaintiffs' mother. It was further contended that the entire properties vested with the first defendant.

3.1. The plaintiffs also contended that they, along with the defendants (their father and brother), constituted a Hindu Undivided Family, and since the properties had not been partitioned, they were entitled to an undivided 3/5 share in the suit properties. They claimed to be co-owners in joint possession of the suit properties.

3.2. It was further stated that a portion of the properties purchased in the name of the mother had been settled in favour of the second defendant by a registered deed dated 27.12.2004. The first defendant had also executed settlement deeds in favour of the second defendant with respect to other portions of the properties, dated 11.07.2007 and 03.02.2014. The plaintiffs contended that all these settlement deeds were void ab initio. Accordingly, they ignored the settlement deeds and claimed partition and separate possession of 3/5 share in the suit properties.

4. The defendants filed a written statement denying and disputing the plaintiffs' claim and right to seek partition. They contended that the plaintiffs do not constitute a Joint Hindu Family with the defendants. It was further stated that the settlement deeds had been properly attested and registered in accordance with law, and that there was no joint family nucleus or corpus from which the properties had been purchased.

4.1. It was stated that the first defendant worked as a Motor Mechanic at TVS Motor Company in Trichy till 1970, after which, he ran an automobile workshop in Chinthamani, Trichy. He also purchased a lorry to operate a transport business from the profits of his business, and from these earnings, he purchased the first item of the suit property on 17.06.1982. He subsequently operated a Water Service Station on this property. The second defendant, after completing his studies, assisted the first defendant in the transport business and service station operations. Several vehicles were later purchased by the second defendant to expand the transport business, and it was from the income of this business that the suit properties were acquired.

4.2. It was further stated that the first plaintiff was married in 1982, the second plaintiff was married in 1984, and the third plaintiff was married in 1994, and that gold jewellery and other Stridh