Property purchased with the aid of ancestral property proceeds constitutes joint family property; however, the Kartha’s alienation of such property to discharge bona fide antecedent debts is binding on coparceners unless the debt is proven to be for illegal or immoral purposes.

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Trichirapalli, in AS No.123 of 1996, dated 24/12/1997 allowing the appeal and dismissing the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, in OS No.748 of 1989, dated 19/03/1996.

J U D G M E N T

1.This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Trichirapalli, in AS No.123 of 1996, dated 24/12/1997 allowing the appeal and dismissing the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in OS No.748 of 1989, dated 19/03/1996.

2.The plaint averments:-

(i)The second defendant, who is now dead is the father of the plaintiff. The properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and the second defendant. The plaintiff got married some 21 years ago. At the time of marriage, the plaintiff's wife was presented with substantial seervarisai, cash. The plaintiff purchased properties in his own name by selling jewels belongs to his wife. Some of the suit properties were purchased out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral properties. During joint living, he contributed towards cultivation and development of the properties. In the properties, he got half share. Second defendant is acting under the instigation of one Nallusamy his son in law and sister in law Veerammal. On 01/09/1989, the second defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant at the instance of Nallusamy. The sale deed was not supported by any consideration and not executed for any family necessity. Even though the properties were sold, still the plaintiff and the second defendant is in joint possession.

(ii)Demanding partition of the suit properties, the plaintiff issued notice on 02/11/1989. Reply was sent by the second defendant on 11/11/1989 containing false averments. So, the suit is laid for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share, future mesne profit, costs.

3.The second defendant remained ex-parte before the trial court. The statement filed by the first defendant who is the purchaser, contain the following averments:-

The suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the second defendant. The plaintiff is having no share in the property. The second defendant sold the first item measuring 3.63 Acres in Survey No.404/1 along with well and motor pump-set and land in Survey No.404/2 measuring abut 1.10 Acres on 11/09/1989 for valid consideration. The second defendant, at the time of sale represented that he incurred debts on pro-notes and for discharging debts, the sale was executed. In the sale deed itself, the second defendant directed the first defendant to discharge the pro-notes, dated 29/06/1986, 30/06/1988 and 27/06/1087. Cash amount of Rs.18,800/- was received for his family and agricultural expenses. The property was purchased by the second defendant on 09/09/1966 out of his own funds. Subsequent to sale deed, the first defendant discharged the pro-note debts. He received possession and now in enjoyment.

4.Even though, it is not admitted that the suit properties which were purchased by the first defendant belongs to the joint family, then on the ground of equity, he must be allotted the property purchased from the second defendant.

5.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by thi