JUDGMENT

The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 2013, dated 20.12.2017, on the file of VI Additional District Court, Madurai.

2. The gist of the plaint is as follows:

The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and the first defendant on 12.09.1972 jointly and since then, they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff, wife of the first defendant is a retired Headmistress of Government School, Melur. The first defendant after working in Statistical Department, had retired. Both of them by using their earnings, have constructed buildings and a compound of 14 houses and leased out to various tenants. Due to their wedlock, the defendants 2 to 4 were born to them and all of them got married and settled. Subsequently, there arose some disputes and issues between the plaintiff and the first defendant and due to the ill-treatment of the plaintiff and their son by the first defendant, they have shifted their residence to Madurai and are living separately. The plaintiff has been suffering from various old age health ailments and with the help of the pension amount, she could not meet out the medical expenses. The plaintiff's complaint to the police against the first defendant for returning of gold jewels was of no avail. The plaintiff came to know recently that the first defendant has been taking steps to alienate the suit property including the plaintiff's share to the third parties. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit for partition.

3. The defence of the first defendant is as follows:

The relationship between the parties is admitted. The suit property has been purchased by the first defendant with his separate income and the amount received by the sale of ancestral properties. The first defendant had no bad habits and worked hard and earned sufficient money for the family. The first defendant with his own money had constructed 14 houses and leased out the same and is receiving the rents. At the instigation of the plaintiff, their daughter-in-law Alagusudha has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2013 against their son Chandrasekar and the same is pending. As of now, there is no need or necessity to effect the partition of the suit property and he is not having objection for his legal heirs to inherit the property after his life time. The plaintiff had been spending all her earnings including the retirement benefits towards the welfare of her sisters and their children. The plaintiff has not contributed any amount either for the purchase of the suit property or for the constructions made therein. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The defence of the second defendant is as follows:

The suit property has been purchased by the first defendant with the help of the income derived from the joint family properties and subsequently, by utilizing the amount obtained by sale of the ancestral properties, had made constructions therein. Though the sale deed was taken in the joint name of the plaintiff and the first defendant, the plaintiff has not contributed any amount. The first defendant was having ancestral lands at Muthalaikulam and in Keelapatti Villages. The first defendant has been doing money lending business. The second defendant and his sisters are also entitled to get 1/4th share in the suit properties.

The non-impleadment of the sisters of the first defendant is fatal to the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties.

Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court:

(1) Whether the suit property was purchased out of the funds derived by selling ancestral properties and from the self acquired properties of the defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in the suit property?

(3) To what relief ?

6. Subsequently, the following additional issue was framed by the trial Court:

Whether the suit is bad fo