VEMBU AMMAL Vs. PATTUAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants who suffered a decree for partition is O.S. No. 16 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur, have filed the above Appeal.

(2.) THE respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties. Even according to the plaintiffs "C" schedule mentioned properties in the plaint are the suit properties. THE plaintiffs claim that the "C" schedule properties are the properties of late Veeramuthu and he acquired the same from out of his earnings and from the income of ancestral properties. THE 1st plaintiff claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the said Veeramuthu and the other plaintiffs are their children. Accordingly to the plaintiffs, after the death of the said Veeramuthu, a dispute arose between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant regarding the properties mentioned in the plaint. THEre was a panchayat in which it was decided that the properties described in "A" schedule should be allotted to the plaintiffs and "B" schedule properties it was decided that the partition should be done in future, and, till then, the income derived from houses as rent and from the business should be enjoyed commonly. On that basis the plaintiffs have filed the above suit for partition claiming half share in the suit properties.

(3.) IN this case, the onus is not one the 1st defendants to prove that the suit properties standing in her name have not been purchased from the joint family nucleus. The Courts have held that when properties stand in the name of female member, evidence should be very strong to the effect that the said properties were purchased in her name from the nucleus of the joint family. The Division Bench of this Court in Kandaswami Chettiar v. Gopal Chettiar, 1975 (II) M.L.J. 184, while dealing with similar case has held as follows:-