JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants before me. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.115 of 2009 seeking the relief of declaration that the suit property was a Hindu undivided Joint Family Property; to declare that the settlement deed dated 25.06.1993 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void; for a permanent injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 3 from alienating or encumbering the suit property; and for a preliminary decree declaring the plaintiffs' 1/7th share in the suit property.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The defendants 1 and

2 filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs' claims stating that the suit property was settled on the first and second defendants by registered settlement deeds dated 25.06.1993 and 12.03.2004 executed by the first defendant and that the plaintiffs were given 10 sovereigns of gold jewels each, apart from house hold Articles as sridhana, even during the lifetime of the 1st wife of the 1st defendant and therefore, they were not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for.

3. The third defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit properties and also referred to the settlement deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of the second and third defendants and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit and granted a preliminary decree for partition, by declaring that the settlement deeds are null and void.

5. The defendants 2 to 4 have preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.65 of 2013, the First Appellate Court, reversed the findings of the trial Court finding that the first defendant had sufficient income to purchase the property in 1967 and therefore, the settlement deeds executed by him were valid and moreover, the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the suit property was purchased out of the sale proceeds of the jewels of their mother viz., first wife of the first defendant.

6. Aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal. This Court, while admitting the above Second Appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law:-

"a. Whether the first appellate Court was right in overturning the adverse inference drawn by the trial Court against the 2nd and 3rd defendants for not getting into the witness box?

b. Whether purchase of the land by 1st defendant can be termed as self acquired property in the light of oral and documentary evidence available on record. c. Is the judgment of the first appellate Court is correct in not holding that the settlement deeds in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 are not valid and acted upon when the defendants 2 and 3 have not given evidence in this case and then they have not produced any revenue records or any other credible to prove that they are in separate possession of the portions of the suit property settled upon them?"

7. Heard Mr.R.Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the First Appellate Court failed to draw adverse inference against the defendants 2 and 3 who never chose to enter the witness box and moreover, having pleaded that the daughters through the first wife who were given 10 sovereign gold jewels each at the time of their marriage, the defendants have not established the same by placing oral and documentary evidence during trial.

9. Further, he would also state that the first defendant had admitted that he was getting only small income from the bakery business and he was also not been able to state that as to how, he got the source for purchase of the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellant would pray for the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court being set aside and judgment and decree