JUDGMENT

S.SOUNTHAR, J The plaintiffs are appellants. They have filed a suit for partition against the respondent, who is their brother. The suit 'A' schedule property consists of movable properties namely jewels of mother. The suit 'B' schedule property consists of two items. The first item is a two storied building with ground floor and first floor and the second item consists of vacant site. The suit was decreed in favour of the appellants, in respect of second item of 'B' schedule property alone. The suit was dismissed in respect of other properties.

2. According to appellants/plaintiffs, the suit item one of 'B'

schedule property was purchased by mother of the parties under sale deed dated 08.05.1998 marked as Ex.A2 and she constructed a building thereon. The mother of the parties died on 28.08.2011 and hence the appellants who are the daughters are entitled to 3/4th share and respondent, who is the son is entitled to 1/4th share. It was also claimed that second item of 'B' schedule property was ancestral one. The father of the parties got it by virtue of partition deed dated 20.08.1993 marked as Ex.A3 and he died on 31.05.2012, leaving behind the parties to the suit. Therefore, the appellants claimed equal share along with respondent in the suit property. It was also claimed by the appellants that the first appellant was residing in the first item of the suit 'B' schedule property and the parties are in joint possession. The appellants further claimed that the respondent tried to evict the first respondent forcefully and he was also not agreeable for partition and hence the suit for the above relief was filed by the appellants.

3. The respondent filed a written statement submitting to the decree, in respect of item 2 of 'B' schedule. As far as 'A' schedule movable properties are concerned, the respondent claimed they did not exist and sought for dismissal of the suit on that ground. The respondent specifically averred that item 1 of 'B' schedule property was purchased in the name of mother of the parties by their father out of his own earnings and further claimed that she held the property only as a Binami, but not as a rightful owner. It was further averred by the respondent that father had executed a settlement deed under Ex.B1 in his favour and consequently, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the 1st item of 'B'

schedule property.

4. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial, the 1st appellant/1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the respondent/defendant was examined as DW.1. The appellants marked Ex.A1 to A8 on their side and the respondent marked as Exs.B1 to B5 on his side.

5. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence found that the appellants failed to prove very existence of movable properties mentioned in suit 'A' schedule property and hence dismissed the suit in respect of 'A' schedule property.

6. As far as item 1 of 'B' schedule is concerned, the trial Court found that the consideration for purchase of property in the name of mother of the parties was paid by father of the parties and hence father was the real owner of the property. Based on the said findings, the trial Court held that the father was entitled to settle the same, in favour of respondent and consequently dismissed the suit for partition in respect of first item of 'B' schedule. As far as second item of 'B' schedule is concerned, the respondent himself submitted to the decree in the written statement. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed in respect of item 2 of 'B' schedule alone and the suit was dismissed in other respects. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come up with this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the appellants had not let in any evidence to prove the jewels owned by their mother described in 'A' schedule property, the respondent as DW.1, admitted that after death of mother, the appellants had removed the jewels without his know