In a second appeal, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact established by lower courts when such findings are supported by evidence and the plea of a family arrangement to relinquish property rights remains unproven.

JUDGMENT

1.The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No. 86 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul and in A.S.No.143 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court) Dindigul, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2.The respondent as plaintiff, instituted a suit in O.S.No.86 of 1992, on the file of the trial Court as against the defendants 1 to 3 seeking for the relief of partition of 5/8 share.

3.Pending the Second Appeal, the first appellant died and the third appellant, who is already on record, is recorded as the legal representative of the deceased first appellant and the second appellant also died. Hence, the fifth respondent herein is brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased second appellant.

4.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

5.According to the plaintiff, the suit properties are the ancestral properties which belonged to one Muthu Konar, who was the father-in-law of the plaintiff, the father of the defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of the third defendant. The said Muthu Konar died 30 years back and he left behind the plaintiff's husband Nallu Konar and the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The marriage between the plaintiff and Nallu Konar took place at Alagar Koil at Thadikombu Village and through the wedlock, a son by name Sankar was born to them. The said Nallu Konar was managing the suit properties as a family manager and he died 6 years ago. After the death of the said Nallu Konar, the plaintiff, her son and the defendants 1 to 3 were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and he died in the year 1987. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and shared the income between themselves. In the meantime, the defendants 1 to 3, on the advice of some miscreants, refused to share the income due to the plaintiff on and from the year 1991. As the defendants 1 to 3 persisted in sharing the income to the plaintiff, she issued a legal notice to the defendants 1 to 3 on 08.11.1991. The defendants 1 and 2 received the abovesaid legal notice but did not choose to send any reply. During the pendency of the suit, the third defendant-Pappammal died and the defendants 1 and 2, who are the daughters, are brought on record as Legal representatives of the deceased third respondent. On the death of the third defendant, her 1/3rd share would devolve upon her daughters equally. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 4 and 5 claimed that the deceased third defendant-Pappammal had executed a registered will in their favour and they contended that the share of the said Pappammal would only devolve upon them and they were added as the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the abovestated relief.

6.The defendants 1 & 2 had filed a written statement stating that the suit properties are the ancestral properties which belonged to Muthu Konar. Muthu Konar had another son by name Gurusamy and the said Muthu Konar died leaving behind the said Gurusamy also as one of his heirs, apart from the other son Nallu Konar and the defendants 1 & 2, who are his daughters and the third defendant, who is his wife. Even during the lifetime of the said Muthu Konar, he had 1/3rd share in the ancestral properties and the other 2/3rd share belonged to his sons N