SAROJINI AMMAL Vs. ANBAZHAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. No. 235 of 1978 is the appeal filed by the first defendant and A. S. No. 354 of 1978 is the appeal filed by the second defendant. The plaintiff is the respondent in both the appeals. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are consolidated for the purpose of convenience and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE suit properties originally belonged to one chinnathu Padayachi. His wife is Visalakshi. He had a son by name Ranganathan and the first defendant is the wife of the said Ranganathan, Chinnathu padayachi has two daughters,the second defendant/ the mother of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff's case is that after the death of Chinnathu Padayachi,his widow was entitled to a half share belonging to her husband and after the death of his son Ranganathan, Visalakshi became entitled to 3/4th share in the suit properties and by virtue of a Will Ex. A-3 executed by her, she bequeathed her 3/4th interest in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and the suit has been tiled for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 3/4th share in the suit properties,future mesne profits and costs.

(3.) TAKING up the appeal filed by the first defendant, a. S. No. 235 of 1978; the learned counsel for the appellant relied on three decisions reported in Nagayasami Naidu and others v. Kochadai Naidu and others, (1970)1 M. L. J. 105:81 L. W. 436: I. L. R. (1969)1 Mad. 4s9: A. I. R. 1969 Mad. 329, puttusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal and others, (1976)21 M. L. J. 225, and ranganayaki Ammal and others v. S. R. Srinivasan and others, (1978)1 M. L. J. 56, and contended that plaint items 29 to 33 were purchased by the first defendant in her name and the fact that a female member in a joint family has purchased in her name, would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the origin of such property should be traced to the joint family or to the income of the joint family and unless a strong link or nexus is established between the available surplus income from the joint family properties and the properties purchased by the first defendant, namely plaint items 29 to 33, they have to be excluded, from the suit. In the decision'reported in Ranganayaki Ammal and others v. S. R. Srinivasan and others, (1978)1 M. L. J. 56, this Court has pointed out that it is not" for the female member to prove how she acquired the property and it is for the person who comes to Court to establish that the property standing in the name of the female members are not their own and unless there is definite clinching proof to the contrary adduced by the challenging member and unless it is established that the surplus income from the joint family property constituted the source for the purchase of the property in the name of the female member, it cannot be claimed as joint family property. ln the instant case, the evidence of P. W. I regarding the income of the property is too vague and cannot be accepted. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the surplus income from the joint family property constituted the source for the purchase of plaint items 29 to 33 by the first defendant. The evidence shows that the father of the 1st defendant is a man of substantial means and he has also bequeathed certain properties in favour of the first defendant under Ex. B-15. As the plaintiff has failed to prove that the surplus income from the joint family properties constituted the source for the purchase of plaint items 29 to 33 by the first defendant,they. have to be excluded from the suit.