Court affirms self-acquired property status, dismisses benami claim, grants partition share.

The appellate court upheld the decision that the suit properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal, rejecting the claim that they were purchased benami by Kannapiran. The respondent was granted a share in the partition of the properties, and the second appeal was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to partition and division of suit properties.
2. Validity and authenticity of the Will dated 04.01.2007.
3. Determination of whether the suit properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal or purchased benami by Kannapiran.
4. The impact of the release and settlement deeds on the claim for partition.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Partition and Division of Suit Properties:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition, seeking to divide the suit properties into seven equal shares and to allot one share to her. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the properties were purchased by Kannapiran in the name of his wife, Lakshmi Ammal, as benami. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal, thus entitling the respondent to her share in the partition.

2. Validity and Authenticity of the Will Dated 04.01.2007:
The appellants claimed that the suit properties were bequeathed to them through a Will dated 04.01.2007, allegedly executed by Lakshmi Ammal and Kannapiran. The trial court accepted this Will, but the appellate court found it unreliable. The appellate court noted that a handwriting expert's report (Exhibit A13) indicated the signatures on the Will were not those of Lakshmi Ammal. Furthermore, the existence of a subsequent Will dated 05.02.2007, mentioned in settlement deeds but not produced, cast further doubt on the validity of the Will dated 04.01.2007.

3. Determination of Whether the Suit Properties Were Self-Acquired by Lakshmi Ammal or Purchased Benami by Kannapiran:
The appellants argued that the properties were purchased by Kannapiran using his earnings but registered in Lakshmi Ammal's name due to restrictions on government servants owning property. The trial court supported this view, but the appellate court disagreed, stating there was no evidence proving the properties were purchased benami. The appellate court emphasized that the sale deeds (Exhibits A1 to A5) and other documents indicated the properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal, and there was no substantial proof to support the appellants' claim.

4. The Impact of the Release and Settlement Deeds on the Claim for Partition:
The appellate court examined the release deed (Exhibit A8) and settlement deeds (Exhibits A9 to A11), which contained recitals acknowledging that the suit properties were acquired by Lakshmi Ammal. These documents, executed by Kannapiran and other defendants, further supported the claim that the properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal. The court noted that if the properties were indeed bequeathed through the Will dated 04.01.2007, there would have been no need for the release and settlement deeds. This inconsistency led the appellate court to conclude that the properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal, thus entitling the respondent to her share.

Conclusion:
The appellate court's judgment, which found that the suit properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal and not purchased benami by Kannapiran, was upheld. The court confirmed the respondent's entitlement to a share in the partition of the properties and dismissed the second appeal, directing the parties to bear their own costs.

---