The classification of properties as joint family or self-acquired depends on the presence of a joint family nucleus; discrepancies in the execution of the Will sow doubt on its validity due to mental incapacity of the testatrix.

JUDGMENT :

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.952 of 2004 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore has filed A.S.No.656 of 2016 against the rejection of reliefs in respect of item nos.10 and 11 of the suit schedule properties and also for rendition of accounts. The 10^th defendant before the trial court has filed A.S.No.638 of 2016 seeking to set aside the preliminary decree granted to the plaintiffs. Defendants 1, 2, 8, 9, 12 to 14 have also filed an appeal in A.S.No.675 of 2016 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. A cross objection has also been filed by the plaintiff Prema in A.S.No.675 of 2016.

2.In this common judgment, the parties shall be referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3.The facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals and cross objection are as follows:

(a)One Maruthachalam Mudaliar along with his two sons, Periya Maruthachalam and Chinna Maruthachalam were doing business in agriculture and cotton. After the death of Maruthachalam, his two sons, namely Periya Maruthachalam and Chinna Maruthachalam continued to do the said cotton business. They used to procure cotton from various agriculturists and to supply the same to the cotton buyers and they were doing the said business for more than 70 years and it is a joint family business. The first plaintiff being the eldest son of Periya Marathuchalam also joined in the joint family business. Periya Maruthachalam and Chinna Maruthachalam sold two acres of joint family property in S.F.No.1112/1 and 2 at Kalapatti village and the said sale price was used to purchase the land in and around the year 1957 in the name of Ayyammal, who is the wife of Periya Maruthachalam, for the welfare of the family and thereafter, constructions were made over the said property and a Ginning Factory was started in the year 1961 and according to the plaintiff, the said Karthikeya Ginning Factory was a partnership firm in which Periya Maruthachalam and Chinna Maruthachalam along with their respective sons including the first plaintiff as coparceners were partners. The Karthikeya Ginning Factory was started out of the joint family business utilizing ancestral nucleus. All the suit properties, according to the plaintiff, were purchased in the name of Ayyammal due to sentimental reasons out of the joint family nucleus.

(b)All the coparceners were made as partners in the firm, i.e., defendants 7, 8 and 9. Items 1 to 11 are the joint family properties purchased out of the joint family nucleus. In the year 1995, after receiving their respective shares, Periya Maruthachalam and Chinna Maruthachalam had moved out of the joint family. Thereafter, the first plaintiff and his family continued the joint family business and were living as joint family till the filing of the suit. The first plaintiff was looking after the business of ginning cotton inside the factory premises and his brothers have taken care of purchase, sales and maintaining of accounts. The first plaintiff has been suffering from physical problems for the past several years and due to the same, he was not able to decide the things as he was physically and mentally weak and he was not in a position to take decision by himself and he believed his brothers defendants 1 to 3.

(c) Taking advantage of the ill health and weak mind and incapabilities of