The claim of property as ancestral requires proof of lineage and sufficient income, with living together not granting rights. The second appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.144 of 2018 dated 18.11.2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.204 of 2013 dated 08.02.2018 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit claiming partition and allottment of ¼ share in the suit properties.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff is the son and the defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the first defendant. The first item of the suit properties and some other properties originally owned by one Aanaiappapillai, father of the first defendant. After the death of the said Aanaiappapillai, the first defendant and his brothers entered into a partition on 21.08.1967 and in that partition, the first defendant was allotted with the first item of the suit properties. The first defendant purchased 2^nd and 3^rd items of the suit properties on 28.11.1981 from and out of the income derived from the first item of the suit properties and hence, the said 2^nd and 3^rd items of the suit properties were also enjoyed as joint family properties. The first defendant asked the plaintiff to manage the suit properties in January2009 and since then, he has been managing the same.

(b) The first defendant at the instigation of her daughters, defendants 2 and 3 claimed maintenance against the plaintiff in M.C.No. 7 of 2012 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and in pursuance of the order of the said Court, the plaintiff has been paying monthly maintenance of Rs.6,500/-. The plaintiff also paid Rs.1,25,000/- towards maintenance arrears with the help of loan obtained by him. Since the plaintiff is earning meager income in his fertilizer shop, demanded the first defendant to partition the suit properties and allot his share, but the defendants colluding with each other are not agreeable for partition. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition and allottment of his ¼ share in the suit properties.

5. The defence of the first defendant, in short, is as follows:

(a) The plaint contention that the first item of the suit properties allotted to the first defendant in 1967 partition is ancestral property and 2^nd and 3^rd items of the suit properties purchased from and out of the income derived from the first item of the suit properties are also joint family properties, are all false and untenable. The first defendant and his brothers entered into a partition on 21.08.1967 but the plaintiff does not know the partition personally. In the partition, the properties available through their father Aanaiappapillai were allotted to the first defendant's brothers, whereas, the properties available through their mother Vellaiammal were allotted to the share of the first defendant, which came to be purchased by his mother in 1924 and that their sister Ponnuthai was given money instead of property. Since the first defendant was allotted with the properties owned by their mother Vellaiammal, the first item of the suit properties cannot be considered as a joint family property. The first defendant worked as a spinning master for about 50 years in Dindigul Annamalaiyar Spinning mill and he purchased the 2^nd and 3^rd items of the suit properties vide sale deed dated 28.11.1981 through his own funds. Since all the suit properties are the separate properties of the first defendant, neither the