The court affirmed that a release deed executed by a parent does not extinguish a minor's coparcener rights in ancestral property without legal necessity, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting separate ownership of joint family property.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal suit has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.261 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, dated 25.08.2005, wherein the appellants herein have filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession over the suit properties and the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

2.The first item of the schedule mentioned properties originally belonged to one A.Palaniappa Gounder ancestrally. The said Palaniappa Gounder had three sons namely A.P.Palaniappa Gounder, Kandhasamy Gounder and Veluchamy Gounder. After the demise of A.Palaniappa Gounder, his three sons had been in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties. The first son of A.Palaniappa Gounder namely A.P.Palaniappa Gounder married the first defendant Nandammal @ Chellammal. They had no issues. Therefore, the first defendant is the only legal heir of the A.P.Palaniappa Gounder. The 2^nd defendant is the wife of Kandhasamy Gounder and the defendants 3 to 6 are the daughters and sons of Kandhasamy Gounder. The said Kandhasamy Gounder died few years back. The 6^th defendant is the father of the plaintiffs. The 7^th defendant is the brother of A.P.Palaniappa Gounder and the defendants 8 to 10 are entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase the third item of the suit property.

2.1.The said A.P.Palaniappa Gounder died in and about one years ago.

The said A.Palaniappa Gounder died 50 years back. After the demise of A.Palaniappa Gounder, A.P.Palaniappa Gounder has maintained the properties as Kartha of the joint family. Out of the income derived from the first schedule of the property, the 2^nd item of the property was purchased in the name of the A.P.Palaniappa Gounder 40 years back. The 3^rd item of the property was also joint family property of A.P.Palaniappa Gounder and his father and his brothers. The said A.P.Palaniappa Gounder executed a sale deed to one Perumal Reddiyar belongs to Sunnakampatty, but the property was under the enjoyment of the plaintiffs' predecessors. Thereafter, the sale price was repaid to the Perumal Reddiar. But, however the property is under the enjoyment of the plaintiffs' predecessors and again the said third item of the property was re-purchased through the income derived from the joint family properties. Therefore, all the properties have been enjoying jointly as joint family properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to share over the suit properties.

2.2.The property was purchased by the A.P.Palaniappa Gounder for the benefit of the joint family in S.F.No.364/2 and the 7^th defendant had constructed a house and also constructed cattle shed in the said property and the defendants 2 & 3 are residing there. The plaintiffs' father got inter-caste marriage and thereby the defendants 1 to 5 along with A.P.Palaniappa Gounder and 7^th defendant threatened the 6^th defendant and got the release deed as if they paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 6^th defendant. In that deed, there was no mention about the properties and the 6^th defendant has released his 1/5^th share over the properties. The 6^th defendant has no right to release the share of the plaintiffs since the properties are ancestral Hindu undivided joint family properties. The properties are worth about Rs.67.50 lakhs. Therefore, the said release deed is not a valid one. The plaintiffs are entitled to 2/15^th share over the properties. In the mean time, the defendants 1 to 5 & 7 attempted to sell the property of the third item to the defendants 8 to 10, whereby the plaintiffs issu