Even in the Release Deed at Exh.
That, by impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has companyfirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court.
That, the son Elumalai and daughter Ranganayaki had died.
On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and 19 documents Exh.
2 and 3 also adopted the written statement filed by defendant number1.
It was never the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit properties were purchased by Narayanasamy Mudaliar in the name of defendant number1 out of the income received from the ancestral properties.
In her deposition, defendant number1 has explained the payment of Rs.10,000/ to Nagabushanam, daughter and the Release Deed executed by her.
It is specifically stated by her that though she had numbershare in the suit properties, with a view to avoid any further litigation in future and to be on safer side, Rs.10,000/ is paid and the Release Deed was got executed by Nagabushanam in favour of defendant number1.
A1 to A3 were marked.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the original defendant number.
the Release Deed executed by Nagabushanam in favour of defendant number 1 on payment of Rs.10,000/ and therefore inference drawn by the learned Trial Court and the High Court that therefore even the defendant number1 also companysidered the share of the daughter and companysidered the suit properties as joint family properties and therefore plaintiffs have also share in the suit properties is companycerned, the said finding is just a misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record.
2 and 3, defendant number1 mortgaged the property with defendant number 3 for a valuable companysideration, which was also known to the plaintiffs.
A1, it is so specifically stated.
Therefore, merely because to avoid any further litigation in future and though Nagabushanam had numbershare in the suit properties, Rs.10,000/ was paid and the Release Deed was got executed in favour of defendant number1, by that itself, it cannot be said that defendant number1 treated the suit properties as ancestral properties and or Joint Family Properties.
B1 to B19 were marked.
9.3 Now, so far as the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court on companysidering the Release Deed at Exh.
1 and 3 of Schedule II, the properties were purchased by the defendant number1 out of the stridhana she received from her parents house and by selling the gold jewellery.
It was the case on behalf of the defendant number1 that except properties in item number.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal and companyfirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court, original defendant number.1 to 3 have preferred the present appeal.
It was denied that the suit properties were purchased by selling the ancestral properties.
9.4 Even companysidering the Will executed by defendant number1 dated 11.02.1987 and the subsequent revocation of the Will is suggestive of the fact that defendant number1 all throughout treated the suit property as her selfacquired property which according to her were purchased from the Stridhana and selling of the jewellery.
3.4 Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and three documents Exh.
3.3 That the learned Trial Court framed the following issues Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of husband of the 1 st plaintiff namely Elumalai and the deceased Narayansamy?
That, the learned Trial Court, after taking into companysideration the oral and documentary evidences of both the sides, passed a preliminary decree finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/4 th share in the suit properties.
1 to 3 preferred appeal before the High Court.
Defendant number.
R. SHAH, J. Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 05.01.2016 passed in AS No.785 of 1992 dismissing the same and affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 05.08.1992 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni in O.S. No.124 of 1990 decreeing the suit for partition by original plaintiff, the original defendant number.
It is required to be numbered that in the plaint the plaintiffs came out with the case that the suit properties purchased in the name of defendant number1 by Narayanasamy Mudaliar from the funds raised by selling the ancestral properties received by him.
1 to 3 have preferred the present appeal.
