Properties in female Hindu's name post-Hindu Succession Act presumed self-acquired; plaintiffs bear heavy burden to prove joint family funds usage.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The plaintiffs in a suit for partition, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the first appellate Court, are the appellants herein.

2. I have heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs.V.Sundari, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The second appeal was admitted by me on 23.03.2026, on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the first Appellate Court was right in reversing the findings of the trial Court in respect of item Nos.15 to 19, ignoring the vital admissions made by the respondents regarding the existence of the joint family nucleus?

5. After hearing the learned counsel, on 22.04.2026, the following substantial question of law was framed additionally:

Whether the respondents / defendants had having admitted to the character of the properties to be joint family properties can turn around and deny the share in the appellants in item Nos. 1 to 14?

6. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the second appeal are as hereunder:

6.1. The plaintiffs, claiming that the suit properties were joint family properties, claimed 18/25 share (each of them entitled to 6/25 share). The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property originally belonged to one Pitchai, his wife/Thangammal as well as his mother/Kaluvayee. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Thangammal was a non-earning member, who had no independent income alone and only for name sake and for good fortune, item Nos.15 to 19 were purchased in the name of the first defendant/Thangammal, who is wife of Pitchai. Taking advantage of the properties having been purchased in her name, the first defendant has executed a sale deed in respect of items 15 to 19, she executed a sale deed in respect of item Nos.15 to 17. Challenging the sale deed and also claiming partition, the suit came to be filed.

6.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants stating that the suit is not maintainable. The properties in item Nos.15 to 19 purchased in the name of the first defendant are self acquired properties. The relief sought by the plaintiffs are beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the suit is hit by law of limitation and prayed the suit is to be dismissed.

7.1. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues.

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition in respect of 18/25 share in respect of the suit properties as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. Whether registered sale deed dated 15.10.2018 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant is valid in law?

4. Whether suit is hit by law of limitation?

5. To what other relief? “

7.2. The trial Court also framed the additional issue is as follows:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs have paid correct court fee properly valuing the relief”

8. At trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and 22 documents were marked as Ex.Al to Ex.A22. On the side of the defendants, defendants examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and 8 documents were marked as Ex.Bl to Ex.B8.

9. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the properties are joint family properties, even though item Nos.15 to 19 were purchased in the name of Thangammal, with the further finding that the said Thangammal was only a name lender. The trial Court has also granted a relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs.

10. Challenging the said jud