The court affirmed that properties acknowledged as ancestral in a partition deed cannot be deemed self-acquired, rectifying erroneous lower court findings.

JUDGMENT

The appellants have filed this Second Appeals against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2023, dated 15.02.2024, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam, by confirming the Judgement and decree in O.S.No.295 of 2009 dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

3.The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 295 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam. The plaintiffs, who are the son and mother, legal heirs of one Velliangiri, filed the above suit for partition against seven defendants, claiming a 3/10th share in the suit properties. The suit properties include Item 1: agricultural lands along with a well, and Item 2: a house bearing Door No.17, Kembanchavudar Street, Karamadai Town, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District.2\26

4. The first defendant, Krishnamal, claimed a 1/4th share in the suit properties, contending that the properties are the ancestral properties of one Nanjappa Gowder @ Nanjaya Gowder, who died leaving behind his wife and four sons, namely, the first defendant, Easwaran, Velliangiri, Rangasamy, and Duraisamy, and one daughter, Sundarambal. One of the sons, Velliangiri, predeceased, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Upon the death of the said Velliangiri, the plaintiffs claimed entitlement to a 1/5th share in the entire suit properties. Since the other defendants, who are the brothers and sister of Velliangiri, were not willing to amicably partition the properties, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a valid partition.

5. The first defendant contested the suit, stating that she is the wife of Nanjappa Gowder and that the entire suit properties, both Item 1 and Item 2, belong to her absolutely. She claimed to have purchased Item 1 in the year 1943 and stated that Item 2 also belongs to her, as reflected in the patta which stands in her name. She further stated that she was coerced into signing a partition deed in 1991 without her consent. Despite this, she

3\26 continued to enjoy the properties as her own and denied the plaintiffs' claim that the properties were ancestral.

6. Defendants 2 to 5 also disputed the plaintiffs' claim, stating that the properties belonged to their mother. Though a partition deed was executed in 1991, they claimed it was never acted upon. The learned counsel for defendants 6 and 7 submitted that they had no objection to allotting a share to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, defendant 5 filed an additional statement claiming that the second item of the property belonged to the first defendant under the Natham Settlement Scheme. It was also stated that the first defendant had executed a Will in favour of defendant 5 in respect of the second item, and the first item was bequeathed to defendants 2 to 5 through a Will dated 31.12.2009. The first defendant passed away on 16.02.2014. As per the said Wills, defendants 2 to 5 are now in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Thus, they contended that the plaintiffs have no right or title in the properties. 4\26

7. The learned trial judge framed specific issues for consideration.Upon evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court found that as per the sale deed marked as Exhibit B1, dated 23.12.1943, Item 1 stands in the name of the first defendant. Additionally, Item 2 stands in her name as per Patta No. 228 (Exhibit B4). Therefore, the court concluded that both items are the absolute properties of the first defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant executed two Wills in favor of defendants 2 to 5. The execution of the Wills was proved by examining an attesting witness. Accordingly, the trial court held that the suit properties are the absolute properties of Krishnamal, and as per the Wills, s