In partition suits, properties acquired by an ancestor are deemed self-acquired unless clear evidence of joint family ownership is presented; admissions in testimony must be clear to affect claims.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated February 4, 2021 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2014 by the 'learned Principal Subordinate Judge (FAC) Tiruppur' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 20, 2013 passed in O.S.No.502 of 1996 by the ‘District Munsif Court, Tiruppur' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The plaintiff seeks partition and separate possession of the suit properties, which were originally owned by her father - Nachimuthu Gounder. He purchased the Suit Properties on April 29, 1949, through a registered Sale Deed executed by Nachimuthu Asari and others. The Suit Properties were later partitioned between Nachimuthu Gounder and his younger brother – Rakkia Gounder, on March 6, 1964. Nachimuthu Gounder passed away intestate on July 11, 1967, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. After Nachimuthu Gounder's demise, the plaintiff and the defendants, as legal heirs, jointly enjoyed the Suit Properties. The plaintiff, residing in north western corner of S.F.No.226 in a house built using her own funds, has faced disturbances from the defendants despite her long-standing possession of the said property. Hence, she issued a legal notice for partition on April 1, 1981, to the defendants 1 to 3, but no action was taken. Subsequently, the 2^nd defendant claimed ownership of the plaintiff's house vide a legal notice dated December 15, 1988. The plaintiff sent a reply notice on January 4, 1989, reiterating her demand for amicable partition, but there was no favourable response from the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the Original Suit. Pending the Suit in 2008, the 3^rd defendant passed away and hence, his legal heirs (defendants 6 to 12) were impleaded in the Suit.

CASE OF DEFENDANTS 1&2

4. The 1^st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 2^nd defendant. It is stated in the written statement that the Suit is false, frivolous and legally unsustainable. The relationship mentioned in the plaint is admitted. The claim that the Suit Properties were the self-acquired properties of Nachimuthu Gounder is false. The Suit Properties were jointly acquired by Nachimuthu Gounder and his brother – Rakkia Gounder in 1949, by virtue of a Sale Deed dated April 29, 1949 using income from ancestral properties, with contributions from defendants 1 and 2. Nachimuthu Gounder, as the family head, managed the joint family estate until a partition in 1964, whereby the Suit Properties were allotted to Nachimuthu Gounder. The plaintiff has intentionally omitted these facts. After 1949, due to illness, Nachimuthu Gounder entrusted family affairs to the 1^st defendant and Rakkia Gounder. Following the 1964 partition, the 2^nd defendant purchased the 3^rd defendant’s undivided 1/3 share in respect of Suit Properties on May 31, 1971. Then the 2^nd defendant mortgaged his undivided 2/3 share with the plaintiff’s husband - Semalai Gounder under a registered Mortgage Deed dated May 31, 1971. The mortgage was discharged on January 27, 1981 by virtue of a Receipt Deed. Therefore, the plaintiff is aware that the 2^nd defendant has been continuously enjoying a 2/3^rd share of the property. Then the first defendant, second defendant and his son partitioned the Suit Properties among them in 1983, whereby Suit ‘A’ Schedule Properties were allotted to first defendant and Suit ‘B’ Schedule Properties were allotted to the second defendant and his son. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants have exercised full ownership rights, excluding the plaintiff, the 4th defendant and the 5^th defendant’s mother. The 1^st defendant also participated in the settlement of the ryotwari patta, further affirming his ownership. Defendants 1 and 2 made improvements to the Suit Properties and constructed a house in S.F. N