KUNCHITHAPATHAM Vs. DHANAPLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.21 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows:-

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the suit property is a joint family property and not a self acquired property. But under Ex.A.1-settlement deed the suit property has been settled in favour of Rathinam Padayatchi by his mother. So, it cannot be said that the suit property is a joint family property. After execution of Ex.A.1 in favour of Rathinam Padayatchi by his mother, Rathinam Padayatchi became the owner of the said property and the plaint schedule property is only a self acquired property of Rathinam Padayatchi. THE learned counsel would further contend that under Ex.B.9 in the year 1953, Rathinam Padayatchi along with his minor children viz, first defendant-Kunchithapatham and first plaintiff-Dhanapalan, had executed mortgage deed and hence, the learned counsel would contend that the property shall be construed only as a joint family property. Ex.B.10 to B.15 also stand in the name of the two sons and their father Rathinam Padayatchi. But, Ex.A.1 stands only in the name of Rathinam Padayatchi and not in the name of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. THE mere fact that the father had included his minor sons in Ex.B.9 to B.15 will not derive as to a conclusion that the suit property is a joint family property. Under Ex.A.1-settlement deed the property has been settled only in favour of Rathinam Padayatchi and hence undoubtedly the conclusion to be arrived at is that the suit property is a self occurred property of Rathinam Padayatchi. THE first point is answered accordingly.