A. JAYANTHI Vs. T.S. ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, lost before the Courts below and assailing the concurrent findings recorded by it, have filed this Second Appeal.

(2.) Facts briefly narrated and necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows:

(3.) Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Rajamani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would contend that no specific issue has been framed by the Trial Court as to the joint family nature of the suit properties and even the Lower Appellate Court did not found any point for determination. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the first defendant did not have sufficient funds to acquire the Suit Item Nos.2 to 15 and the Courts below had failed to take into consideration the occupation of the deceased/plaintiff and the income generated to purchase the suit property in the name of the first defendant and the Courts below ought to have given a finding that the suit items are joint family properties and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs that admittedly, the first defendant was selling only eatables and therefore, it is impossible for him to generate income to purchase the Suit Item Nos.2 to 15 and the said vital aspect has been completely overlooked by the Courts below. Insofar as the Settlement Deeds and Will executed by the first defendant in favour of the legal heirs of the second defendant, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs that those documents have not been proved in accordance with law and further alienation made in favour of the ninth defendant is also not valid in law and the Courts below, without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, had erroneously reached the conclusion to reject the case of the plaintiffs and prays for interference.