The absence of evidence proving the joint family status of properties allows a presumption that they are individual assets; thus, plaintiffs' claim for partition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

The second appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam in A.S.No.17 of 2013. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the main suit for the relief of partition as against the appellant and the respondents 3 & 4 herein and the suit was decreed by granting partition in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the first defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2013. The First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the said decree and judgment, the present second appeal has been filed by the first defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The plaintiffs are the daughters of the first defendant. The father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant had own ancestral properties at Marur Village. The first item of the suit property is ancestral property of the first defendant and the second item of the suit property has been purchased through the income of the ancestral property in the name of the first defendant. Therefore, both the properties are Hindu Undivided Joint Family properties of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. Apart from these properties, the plaintiffs' grandmother, namely, Muniyammal possessed the second item of the suit properties and other properties. The said Muniyammal had two sons, namely, Subramaniya Mudaliar and Arumugam. After the demise of the said Muniyammal, her two sons inherited the said properties. Subramaniya Mudaliar was doing business in Trichy and he settled there and died 25 years back leaving behind his wife and three daughters as his legal heirs. The first defendant out of the funds derived from the sale of ancestral property at Marur village purchased the second item of the suit property through sale deed dated28.07.1993 and all the suit properties are under common and joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The first defendant left Marur village 25 year back and settled at Peramandur village. Therefore, the plaintiffs each are entitled to 1/3^rd share and the first defendant is entitled to 1/3^rd share of the suit properties. The first defendant deserted his wife and now living with another woman for past seven years at Tindivanam. Therefore, the plaintiffs demanded their lawful share. But the first defendant evaded to partition over the properties. Therefore, filed the suit.

4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows :

It is true that the plaintiffs are daughters of the first defendant. It is false to state that he deserted his first wife and living with another woman. It is false to state that the first item of the suit property is ancestral property and through ancestral property, income was derived and through that income the second item of the suit property was purchased. In fact, the first defendant from his tender age was doing Mason work and thereby purchased the second item of the suit property. The averments in respect of the property belonged to Muniyammal is also denied as false. The first defendant has performed marriage to the first plaintiff in the year 1997 and he incurred huge expenses for the marriage and thereby he sold the first item of the suit property to one Sundar