The property purchased in a female's name is presumed self-acquired unless proven otherwise; claims under the Benami Act require appropriate pleadings and evidence.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This second appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, in A.S.No.23 of 2013. The appellants are the defendants 3 to 7. The respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed the main suit for partition as against the respondents 4 to 11 and the appellants herein. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of ‘A’ schedule property excluding Item No.10 declaring that the plaintiffs and defendants 9 to 14 are entitled to 1/8 share in ‘A’ schedule property excluding Item No.10 and dismissed the suit in respect of ‘B & C’ schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants 3 to 8 have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore and the said appeal was dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 3 to 7.

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 :

3.1. ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule suit properties belonged to one V.C.Raju Gounder and the said properties are his self acquired properties and he was in possession and enjoyment of the properties till his death. He died intestate on 09.10.1979 leaving behind his legal heirs to succeed the estate. The said Raju Gounder had two wives, first wife namely, Singarammal. The first defendant is the daughter of Raju Gounder, born through the first wife Singarammal. While so, during the subsistence of first marriage, the said Raju Gounder married the third defendant as second wife. The defendants 4 to 8 were born to Raju Gounder through the second wife / third defendant. The second defendant is the mother of Raju Gounder. Raju Gounder died leaving behind him the first defendant’s mother, Singarammal, the first defendant Shenbagam. His daughter first defendant and defendants 4 to 8 as his legal heirs and all of them are equally each entitled to 1/8 share. The first defendant's mother Singarammal died intestate on 23.09.1989 leaving behind the first defendant as his sole legal heir and thereby the first defendant is entitled to 2/8 share in the suit properties. The third defendant who is the second wife of Raju Gounder is not entitled to any share.

3.2. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant died on19.09.2002. The plaintiffs and the defendants 9 to 14 were impleaded as legal heirs of the first defendant. The 'A' schedule properties were purchased by Raju Gounder in his own name and 'B' schedule properties were purchased by Raju Gounder with his own funds in the name of the fourth defendant. The said properties also blended with Joint Family properties and enjoyed along with 'A' schedule properties. After the death of Raju Gounder, the defendants 3 and 4 have been in possession and enjoyment of the 'A and B' schedule properties, realized the income therefrom. Out of the income from 'A' schedule properties, the third defendant purchased the 'C' schedule properties and thereby all the suit properties are Joint Family properties. The second defendant Killiammal executed a registered Will dated 09.05.1997, bequeathing her undivided 1/8 share in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 1/8 share in the suit properties. As per the order passed by this Court in IA No.210 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009, the plaintiff in OS No.102 of 1991 was transposed as first defendant and original defendants 8, 9 and 11 are transposed as plaintiffs in the main suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming their share over the suit properties.

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

The suit is not maintainable and the s