THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.A.No.536 of 2006

1.C.T.Chellammal

2.C.T.Jeeva Rathinam

3.C.T.Kamatchi

4.C.T.Padmini

5.P.Sambandam

6.P.S.Nirmala

7.P.S.Anuradha

8.P.S.Thiruvakkarasu

9.P.S.Sreedharan

10.P.S.Mahalakshmi

11.P.S.Vaishnavi S/o.Sambandan, No.38, Ponnappa Mudalist, Purasawalkam, Chennai – 600 084.

[A3 died, A11 is B/R as LR's of the deceased A3 vide Court order dated

11.12.2023 made in CMP.No.20051/2023 in S.A.No.536/06]

...Appellants Vs.

1.C.T.Saravana Perumal (died)

2.C.T.Sambandamurthy

3.C.T.Kothandapani (died)

4.T.Rajammal

5.T.S.Akilandeswari

6.T.S.Pasupathy

7.T.S.Revathy

8.T.S.Leela Kumaran

9.T.S.Thilagavathy [R1 died. R4 to R9 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 15.03.2023 made in CMP.Nos.5375, 5377, 5378 of 2022 in

10.K.Kasthuri Bai

11.T.K.Thiruppura Sundari

12.T.K.Senbagavalli

13.T.K.Vijaya shanthi

14.T.K.Divviya Sundari (R3 died R10 to R14 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R3 vide order of Court dated 15.03.2023 made in CMP.Nos.5385, 5386, 5391 of 2022 in S.A.No.536 of 2006)

...Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1409 of 1992 dated 26.02.1997 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Madras as confirmed in A.S.No.141 of 1998 dated 09.04.2002 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

For Appellants : Mr.Maria Joseph David for Mr.A.Amalraj For Respondents : Ms.U.Dhivya for Mr.D.Padmanabhan for R4 to R14 R1 and R3 died No appearance for R2 J U D G M E N T Originally the suit property belongs to one M.C.Tulukkanam, he has got three sons and five daughters. The sons are arrayed as D1 to D3 before the trial Court and daughters are arrayed as defendants 4 to 7. Apart from the above legal heirs, Tulukkanam has got another daughter C.T.Pangajavalli who died, even prior to filing of the suit and her legal heir has been arrayed as defendants 8 to 13 before the trial Court.

2. After the demise of first defendant viz., C.T.Saravana Perumal, his legal heirs have been arrayed as respondents 4 to 9 and after the demise of 3^rd respondent viz., C.T.Kothandapani his legal heirs are arrayed as respondents 10 to 14 and 5^th respondent namely Kamatchi's legal heir is arrayed as 11^th appellant. Likewise, Pangajavalli's legal heirs, who are the defendants 8 to 13 are arrayed as the appellants 5 to 10.

3. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellants 5 and 8 died and their legal heirs are already on record. According to the plaint averment, the suit property is the self acquired property of M.C.Tulukkanam. Therefore, the suit was instituted by Tulukkanam's wife Pattammal, who is the mother of the defendants 1 to 7, seeking for partition to divide the suit property into 1/3^rd share and for allotment of one such share.

4. Evidence and findings before the Trial Court:

Before, the trial Court, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1 and seven documents have been marked as A1 to A7. On behalf of the defendants, defendants 2 and 5 were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and nine documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B9. The trial Court after having considered oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the suit property was ancestral property and accordingly allotted 1/4^th share to each son, and in the M.C.Tulukkanam share the plaintiff was allotted 1/36^th share.

5. Aggrieved by the same, when the plaintiff Pattammal preferred the first appeal, the First Appellate Court has also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants who are the daughters and legal heirs of deceased daughter Pangajavalli have preferred the instant second appeal.

6. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law by order dated 18.09.2006:

“Whether the suit property is the ancestral property or self acquired property of the deceas