Self-acquired properties via gift, purchase, and personal funds retain separate character, not blending into ancestral nucleus despite family management.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The plaintiffs in a suit for partition, aggrieved by the findings of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul in A.S.No.34 of 2014 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.11 of 2012, on the file of the Sub-Court, Vedasandur, are the appellants herein.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for deciding the present Second Appeal are as follows:

The case of the plaintiff:

2.1. The suit properties originally belonged to Semba Gounder, father of the first defendant and the properties are ancestral properties. After the death of Semba Gounder, the first defendant purchased the properties in his name, from and out of the income that accrued from the ancestral properties. Some of the ancestral properties were also sold and from and out of the sale proceeds, two shops and two houses were constructed in S.No.1340/1(B). The said properties were belonging to Vellaiammal and her sister Karuppayammal. Items 4 to 9 of the suit schedule property were partitioned between Vellaiammal, wife of the first defendant and she was allotted the northern side. Vellaiammal, was therefore, entitled for half share and thereafter, she died in the year 2000. Karuppayammal, her sister was allotted the southern side of items 4 to 9. Defendants were aware of the same, but denied any partition between the two sisters.

2.2. The first defendant is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff. Second defendant is the brother-in-law of the first plaintiff. First plaintiff married one Thangavelu, who is the elder son of the first defendant in the year 1996. Second plaintiff was born to them. The husband of the first plaintiff died in a road accident on 22.09.1999. During his life time, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff joined the execution of sale deeds on 13.07.1994, 02/02/1995 and 05.04.1995, to third parties. Subsequent to the demise of her husband, first plaintiff got employment and was appointed as a Nurse in Theni Government hospital. Therefore, she left the suit property along with her son, the second plaintiff. Taking advantage of the same, defendants have denied the entitlement of the plaintiffs. First plaintiff issued a notice on 25.06.2005, to which a reply was sent on 14.07.2005, with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

The case of the first defendant:

2.3. Relationship between the parties is admitted. The factum of the death of the first defendant in a road accident is also admitted. First item of property in S.No.1340/1(B) is an ancestral property, belonging to the first defendant. The properties were mortgaged by the first defendant, along with his brothers in the year 1955 and it is the first defendant who redeemed the said mortgage from and out of his personal income in the year 1975. The first defendant has two daughters and in order to maintain his family, educate the children and also to meet out the medical expenses of his wife, who suffered from cancer, the first defendant was compelled to borrow money and he was also constrained to sell 0.80 cents of ancestral property, besides his self-acquired properties, to repay the land. The suit properties have been purchased only out of the income that accrued to the first defendant as an LIC agent and the ancestral properties did not yield any income, whatsoever.

2.4. Insofar as property purchased in S.No.1477/2B, first defendant borrowed Rs.1,10,000/- from LIC and put up construction in the year 1981. He re-paid the loan from and out of the income. The said property is his self-acquired property. From and out of the income from the commission as LIC age