JUDGMENT

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The unsuccessful appellant in a suit for partition has challenged the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur in the above appeal.

2. The averments in the plaint are that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to

1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. She is the daughter of one Mohamed Hussain, who died in the year 2003. Mohamed Hussain was survived by his children, namely, the first (son), second (son) and third (daughter) respondents. As per Muslim law, the sons are entitled to twice the share of the daughters. The first respondent and the second respondent together are entitled to 4/6th share in the suit schedule properties and the appellant and the third respondent were each entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties consisted of 29 items of properties. In most of the properties, patta was issued in the name of the deceased, Mohamed Hussain, the father of the appellant/plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 3. The first respondent as the eldest son was taking care of the family properties and out of the income derived from the family properties, had purchased certain properties in his own name and in the name of his wife and children. These properties also belong to the family and hence, they are available for partition. The fourth respondent is the wife of the first respondent. The respondents 5 and 6 are the children of the fourth respondent. The 7th and 8th respondents are subsequent purchasers of the property of the fourth respondent. The appellant/plaintiff therefore prayed for partition of the suit schedule properties.

3. The respondents 1, 4 to 6 filed a written statement stating that it is true that the appellant is the daughter of Mohamed Hussain. Mohamed Hussain died on 21.12.2003. The appellant/plaintiff got married in the year 1972 and thereafter had nothing to do with the family or the properties. The suit schedule properties were either in the name of the first respondent or in the name of the fourth respondent, his wife and his children, the fifth and sixth respondents. Though the appellant/plaintiff claimed that in certain properties patta was issued in the name of Mohamed Hussain, the appellant/plaintiff had conveniently suppressed the fact that subsequently patta was issued in the name of the first respondent in all the properties pursuant to an oral gift by the father of the appellant/plaintiff. Subsequently, this oral gift was recorded on 07.03.1985. Some of the properties had been sold to the respondents 7 and 8. The appellant/plaintiff has not established as to how the properties still belong to the late Mohamed Hussain. That apart, the properties purchased in the name of the respondents 1, 4 to 6 cannot be treated as family properties as there is no concept of joint family property in Muslim law.

4. The seventh respondent filed a written statement reiterating the averments made by the respondents 1, 3 and 6 stating that they had purchased the property from the fourth respondent. It was self-acquired property of the fourth respondent and therefore, it is wrong to allege that it was the family property of late Mohamed Hussain. The Court fees paid under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act is erroneous. The appellant/plaintiff cannot claim joint possession of the properties and ought not to have paid Court fees on that basis.

5. Before the Trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P10. The first respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exhibits B1 to B32.

6. The Trial Court framed 10 issues and held in favour of the respondents/defendants in all the issues. The Trial Court found that the appellant/plaintiff had not established that the suit properties belong to her father, deceased Mohamed Hussain. On the other hand, the respondents had established that the suit properties which were originally