Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8770 (MAD)

R. Kamala v. R. R. Parthiban

2025-04-29

G R Swaminathan, M Jothiraman

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Unsuccessful defendants 1 & 2 have preferred the appeal in A.S.(MD)No.32 of 2023 against O.S.No.50 of 2014. Unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred appeal in A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2023 against O.S.No.65 of 2016. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff/Parthipan filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 seeking the relief of declaration to declare the registered settlement deed (Ex.A19) executed by the first appellant/Kamala in favour of her daughter the second appellant/Jeyanthi in respect of item No.3 in suit second schedule namely the house property as null and void and further, relief of partition of the suit property schedule 1 to schedule 3 and allot 5/16 shares in his favour. 3. The above suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 was allowed by the trial Court thereby, the settlement deed in Ex.A19 is declared as null and void and so far as the relief of partition the trial Court granted the relief of partition to the extent of ¼ shares as against 5/16th shares as claimed and partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 30.09.2022 the defendants one and two have preferred the appeal in A.S. 4. The first and second defendants namely, Kamala and Jeyanthi (in O.S.No.50 of 2014) as the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 in respect of the house property, which is described as item No.3 in second schedule in O.S.No.50 of 2014 against Parthiban (Plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2014) for the relief of mandatory injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, Kamala and Jeyanthi have preferred the appeal in A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2023. For the shake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 5. The brief Case of the plaintiff in OS.No.50 of 2014 is as follows:- The first defendant/Kamala is the wife of the one Rajasekaran. The plaintiff/Parthiban and defendant No.2/Jeyanthi and defendant No. 3/Anandhi are their children. Rajasekaran had ancestral properties. He sold the said ancestral properties and utilized the proceeds to start a cinema theatre under the name and style of Rajeshwari Theatre. Hence, the said theatre business is a joint family business. The land over which the theatre is put up, originally, belonged to Alagusundara Ammal, the mother of the said Rajasekaran. She executed a registered settlement deed dated 23.05.1983 in favour of her son Rajasekaran. Rajasekaran was successful in running the said theatre. Hence, the said theatre business is a joint family business. The land over which the theatre is put up, originally, belonged to Alagusundara Ammal, the mother of the said Rajasekaran. She executed a registered settlement deed dated 23.05.1983 in favour of her son Rajasekaran. Rajasekaran was successful in running the said theatre. The said theatre business was run by him as the joint family business and the joint family comprised of the said Rajasekaran, his children, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. By running the theatre business successfully, Rajasekaran earned lot of money and making use of the same, he started real estate business which also will get the color as that of joint family business. Rajasekaran purchased many properties in his name and in the name of his family members. The properties as items 2 to 4 in first schedule purchased by Rajasekaran in his name. The properties 1 to 3 in the suit II schedule in the name of his wife namely Kamala/first defendant. The properties 1 to 11 in suit 'C' schedule were purchased by Rajasekaran in the name of daughter, the second defendant/Jeyanthi. 6. The second schedule properties numbering three items were purchased by Rajasekaran, out of joint family nucleus in the name of wife, the first defendant and she is only a name lender. The third schedule properties numbering 11 items were also purchased by Rajasekaran from out of joint family nucleus in the name of his daughter/second defendant and she is only a name lender. The first defendant has no independent right or title over second schedule properties, so also the third defendant over third schedule properties. While so, the first defendant, mother executed a registered settlement deed in respect of third item in second schedule in favour of her daughter, the second defendant, vide registered settlement deed dated 13.03.2014. Plaintiff's father Rajasekaran died on 31.03.2013 without leaving any testament and that after father's demise, the plaintiff and the defendants became entitled to the suit properties. All the suit properties are the joint family properties, in which of the said Rajasekaran, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 have equal shares, each entitled ¼ shares. After demise of Rajasekaran, his undivided 1/4 th interest in the said suit properties devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to undivided 5/16 shares in the suit properties. 7. After demise of Rajasekaran, his undivided 1/4 th interest in the said suit properties devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to undivided 5/16 shares in the suit properties. 7. Brief case of the defendants is as follows:- It is false to state that there was a joint family. The plaintiff has not given any details about the properties derived by Late. Rajasekaran from his father as ancestral properties. Cinema theatre started in the year 1978. At that time the plaintiff was hardly 14 years and a school going boy. The land over which the theatre was put up was originally owned by Alagusundara Ammal, his mother, who got the same from her father. Initially Rajasekaran entered into a lease arrangement with his mother and started a touring talkies. The cinema business got flourished and the said Alagusundara Ammal gifted away the land over which the cinema theatre was put up in favour of her son Rajasekaran vide document dated 23.05.1983. The items 2 and 3 in firs schedule were purchased by Rajasekaran through sale deed (Ex.A2 to Ex.A4) and those properties are also the separate properties of Rajasekaran. The first defendant hails from a big industrialist family. Cinema business had become dull from 1993 onwards and late. Rajasekaran was unable to run the cinema theatre. Thereafter, he demolished the theatre, formed a layout in item No.1 of first schedule and dealt with the same in favour of third parties. In fact, two such plots were settled by Rajasekaran in favour of his son, the plaintiff (vide Ex.B7 & Ex.B8). The said settlement deeds were accepted by the plaintiffs. Later on, Rajasekaran started a cable TV business under the name and style of “Dilipan Cable TV Networks” in the name of his deceased son Dilipan and continued with the said business till his death. But the plaintiff had forcibly taken the cable TV business from the first defendant and has been running the said business. The plaintiff has not shown the cable TV business in the suit. Item No.2 and 3 in first schedule were also purchased by late Rajasekaran (vide sale deeds Ex.A2 to Ex.A4). The properties described in suit second schedule are the absolute properties of the first defendant. In fact, her father was instrumental for purchasing few items mentioned in second schedule. The plaintiff has not shown the cable TV business in the suit. Item No.2 and 3 in first schedule were also purchased by late Rajasekaran (vide sale deeds Ex.A2 to Ex.A4). The properties described in suit second schedule are the absolute properties of the first defendant. In fact, her father was instrumental for purchasing few items mentioned in second schedule. The first defendant with the jewels provided to her at the time of her marriage and with the moneys saved by her, acquired the properties mentioned in second schedule through separate sale deeds (Ex.A5 to Ex.A7). Item No.3 in second schedule is the dwelling house. The same was purchased by the first defendant and subsequently, demolished the old house had put up a new construction therein. The revenue records such as patta, gistal receipts in respect of item no.1 and 2 in second schedule properties are standing in the name of first defendant. The second defendant got married in the year 1993. The second defendant has purchased the properties described in suit third schedule through registered sale deeds, all after her marriage with the help of her husband. The plaintiff was in habit of disturbing his parents. The relationship was not cordial till the death of Rajasekaran. The plaintiff started a business of his own under the name and style of M/s. RRB Tiers. He has no right in suit second and third schedule properties. In suit first schedule, item No.1 is the remaining property in the layout and the properties described as suit first schedule are the absolute properties of late. Rajasekaran. The first defendant executed a registered settlement deed dated 24.12.2014 in favour of second defendant in respect of her undivided ¼th share in suit first schedule. At the inception, the plaintiff described his mother as an insane person and shown the third defendant as her next friend and guardian. The first defendant objected for such representation. The plaintiff filed a petition to examine the signature available in the registration certificate issued for running cable TV in favour of Rajasekaran dated 25.08.2012 for scientific examination. The trial Court dismissed the said petition and against the said order, the plaintiff filed a civil revision petition before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 8. The trial Court dismissed the said petition and against the said order, the plaintiff filed a civil revision petition before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 8. Brief averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.65 of 2016:- The suit schedule house property was purchased by the first plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 02.02.2001. It is the absolute property of the first plaintiff/Kamala. She had subsequently put up a better construction therein. She has been paying tax and has been enjoying the same as her absolute property. She settled the same in favour of her daughter, the second plaintiff/Jeyanthi vide settlement deed dated 13.03.2014. The defendant had left his parents wayback in 1989 and living separately. After demise of Rajasekaran, at the instance of the eldest and well wishers of the family, the first plaintiff permitted the defendant to reside in a portion of the suit house. After settlement deed in favour of the second plaintiff, she also allowed the defendant to continue in the suit house. The defendant is in permissive possession/occupation. While so, in order to grab the property, the defendant was behaving rudely. The plaintiffs recalled the permission given by them to the defendant and required him to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property. The defendant though received the said notice has not chosen to send any reply. 9. The suit was resisted by the defendant by which he claimed the suit property as the joint family property and proclaimed as if he is in possession of the same as an undivided right holder. 10. Based on the rival pleadings necessary issues were framed in both suits and joint trial was ordered and evidence was ordered to be recorded in O.S.No.50 of 2014. On the side of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1, Balasekaran examined as P.W.2, Gunasekaran examined as P.W.3 and Kamalakannan examined as P.W.4 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A46 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant herself examined as D.W.1, second defendant examined herself as D.W.2, the third defendant examined herself as D.W.4, one Sundra Krishnan examined as D.W.3 and and Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 were marked. 11. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant herself examined as D.W.1, second defendant examined herself as D.W.2, the third defendant examined herself as D.W.4, one Sundra Krishnan examined as D.W.3 and and Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 were marked. 11. Findings of the trial Court:- The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 and passed preliminary decree for partition of all the properties by holding that (a) the properties in first schedule were declared to be the separate properties of late Rajasekaran. Since he died intestate, granted ¼ shares to the plaintiff, ½ share to the second defendant (her 1/4 th share as one of the legal heirs of the deceased + 1/4 th share of the first defendant, since she released her share in those properties in favour of the second defendant) and the remaining 1/4 th share to the third defendant. (b) insofar as the properties in suit second schedule the fist defendant has not proved about the fact that how she got those properties and held that those properties in suit second schedule are also the properties of Late. Rajasekaran and passed a decree for partition 1/4 th shares to the plaintiff. (c) in suit second schedule item No.3, the house property though purchased in the name of the first defendant she having failed to prove her source, came to a conclusion that first defendant is not the absolute title holder and declared Ex.A19 the registered settlement deed as null and void. (d) insofar as the properties in suit third schedule though their stand in the name of the second defendant, she has not proved about the fact that how she got these properties and trial Court held that those properties in suit second schedule are also the properties of late Rajasekar and granted 1/4 th share to the plaintiffs. (e) the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 holding that the subject matter of that suit namely item No.3 in suit second schedule in O.S.no.50 of 2014 also belonged to late. Rajasekar and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 12. It is pertinent to mention that insofar as the suit first schedule, the parties are conceded and not challenged in these appeals. Under challenge in these appeals with regard to the suit second schedule and third schedule alone. 13. Rajasekar and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 12. It is pertinent to mention that insofar as the suit first schedule, the parties are conceded and not challenged in these appeals. Under challenge in these appeals with regard to the suit second schedule and third schedule alone. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the burden of proof is heavily rested on the shoulders of the plaintiff, who alleged that second schedule of the suit property was purchased from the income of the joint family has not been discharged. The trial Court failed to consider the claim of the benami or the second schedule of the suit property from the income of joint family is legally barred and also failed to consider that the second item of the suit property is self acquired property of the first appellant/Kamala. The plaintiff cannot question the settlement deed executed by the first appellant/Kamala in favour of her daughter, second appellant/Jeyanthi as second schedule of the suit property is self acquired property of the first appellant/Kamala. The first respondent/plaintiff had got properties by way of gift deed from his father, while he was alive and which were not brought for partition. He would submit that though the plaintiff proclaimed that suit fist schedule is joint family property, but during trial, the plaintiff as P.W.1 had conceded that suit first schedule properties are properties of his father late. Rajasekaran and restricted his claim to 1/4 th share as against his initial claim of 5/16 th share. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is estopped from applying the theory of joint family over suit second schedule and suit third schedule properties. 14. The learned counsel further would argued that the properties standing in the name of a female is presumed to be her absolute and separate properties and in such cases, she need not prove regarding the source with which she acquired such properties. The properties in suit third schedule are purchased in the name of second defendant/Jeyanthi well after 1993 ie., after her marriage. So the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibtion) Act will come as legal impediment for the plaintiff to claim right over suit third schedule properties. To strengthen his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in R. Rajagobal Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. Vs. So the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibtion) Act will come as legal impediment for the plaintiff to claim right over suit third schedule properties. To strengthen his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in R. Rajagobal Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. Vs. Pandmini Chandrasekaran (Dead) by LRs. 1995 (I) CTC 568 . Another judgment of this Court reported in K.V. Ramasamy Vs. K.V. Rahavan and Ors. 2009 (4) CTC 440 to show that the properties acquired, standing in the name of female member of a Hindu joint family cannot be treated as joint family properties and the female member need not prove as to how she acquired it. Yet another judgment reported in Rajendran and another Vs. Radhakrishnan and another, 2023 (6) CTC 732 to show that the initial burden on the plaintiff to show that there was a sufficient nucleus which yielded very large income and it was from and out of the said surplus, the properties that stand in the name of the members of the family were acquired. If the property acquired is standing in the name of the female members of a joint family, she need not prove as to how she acquired it. 15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent/plaintiff's father got large number of properties by his inheritance from his father. The said Rajasekaran started small cinema theatre in the year 1978 and the investment for the theatre was made by Rajasekaran only from the income of the ancestral properties and from the sale proceeds of the ancestral properties. So the entire investment for the theatre was made from ancestral nucleus. Only in order to satisfy the authorities to get a permanent licence for the theatre, the mother of the said Rajasekar one Alagusundara Ammal gifted first schedule first item of the suit property on 26.05.1983 in favour of the Rajasekaran. The plaintiffs' father through a real estate business earned money. The said Rajasekaran became the Kartha of the Hindu United family and started investing his Hindu United Family money in the name of his wife, daughters and sons since 1983. 16. The plaintiffs' father through a real estate business earned money. The said Rajasekaran became the Kartha of the Hindu United family and started investing his Hindu United Family money in the name of his wife, daughters and sons since 1983. 16. The learned senior counsel further would submit that the trial Court by considering the oral evidence and documents come to a conclusion that though the suit second schedule stand in the name of the first defendant/Kamala, and held that since the first defendant having not proved about the fact that how she got this properties. Further, the trial Court found that though the house property in suit second schedule item No.3 stands in the name of the first defendant, she having failed to prove her source and declared the settlement deed as null and void. There is no reason to interfere with the decree and judgment of the Court below. 17. Points for Determination arises in these appeals:- i) Whether the suit second schedule properties are separate properties of the first defendant/Kamala? ii) Whether the suit third schedule properties are separate properties of the second defendant/Jeyanthi? 18. In the plaint in O.S.No.50 of 2014 mentioned that first schedule consisting of 1 to 4 items. Second schedule consisting of 1 to 3 items. Third schedule consisting of 1 to 11 items. According to the plaintiff, his father purchased many properties in his name and in the name of his family members. 19. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the second schedule property item 1 to 3 were purchased by his father from out of joint family nucleus (said to have been derived from suit first schedule properties) and the name of his wife, the first defendant/Kamala and she is only a name lender. Similarly, third schedule properties item 1 to 11 were also purchased by his father from out of joint family nucleus (said to have been derived from suit first schedule properties) and the name of his daughter, the second defendant/Jeyanthi and she is only a name lender. 20. It is also specific case of the plaintiff that the first defendant Mother has executed a settlement deed in Ex.A19 in favour of her daughter, the first defendant has no independent right or title over the second schedule properties. 21. 20. It is also specific case of the plaintiff that the first defendant Mother has executed a settlement deed in Ex.A19 in favour of her daughter, the first defendant has no independent right or title over the second schedule properties. 21. The plaintiff's father died on 31.03.2013 without leaving any testament and that after father's demise, the plaintiff and the defendants become entitled to the suit properties. The subject matter of the suit property in O.S.No.65 of 2016 in respect of house property described as item No.3 in second schedule in O.S.No.50 of 2014. 22. P.W.1-Parthipan in his cross examination admits that the suit first schedule properties are the absolute properties of the father Late. Rajasekaran and restricted his claim to ¼ as against his initial claim of 5/16 shares prayed in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that father from out of the income derived from suit first schedule first item, purchased item No.2 and item No.3 in first schedule in his name and also suit second schedule and suit third schedule properties in the name of first defendant and second defendant respectively and that too for the benefit of the joint family. In view of the admission made by the plaintiff in his evidence, whether he is estopped from applying the theory of joint family over suit second and third schedule property is to be considered in these appeals 23. It is well settled that the properties standing in the name of female is presumed to be her absolute and separate properties and in such case, she need not prove regarding the source with which she acquired such properties. 24. It is an admitted fact that the second defendant got married way back in the year 1993. The properties in suit third schedule are purchased vide documents Ex.A8 to Ex.A18 in the name of the second defendant/Jeyanthi well after 1993, i.e. after her marriage. She is not an unmarried daughter, but married and gone to her marital home. All the original sale deed are in her custody. In such circumstances, the properties in suit third schedule are separate property and not that of alleged joint family. Even assuming without admitting that it was father who purchased this properties, normal presumption is that such purchases were made for the benefit of the daughter. All the original sale deed are in her custody. In such circumstances, the properties in suit third schedule are separate property and not that of alleged joint family. Even assuming without admitting that it was father who purchased this properties, normal presumption is that such purchases were made for the benefit of the daughter. It is relevant to refer Sections 3(1)(2) & 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 reads as follows:- 3. Prohibition of benami transactions- (1) No person shall enter into any benami transaction. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefit of the wife of the unmarried daughter. 4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami- (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. (2) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. The case on hand, it is a case of purchases made in the name of married daughter, so provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act will come as legal impediment for the plaintiff to claim rights over suit third schedule properties. In view of the above, the suit third schedule is the separate property of the second defendant/Jeyanthi, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right or share in the properties. 25. In the case of suit second schedule properties, they are purchased by the first defendant vide Ex.A5 to Ex.A7. Ex.A19 is a registered settlement deed dated 13.03.2014 executed by the first defendant in favour of her daughter, the second defendant in respect of suit second schedule, item no.3, dwelling house. The said property stands in the name of first defendant under Ex.A7 sale deed. Ex.A19 is a registered settlement deed dated 13.03.2014 executed by the first defendant in favour of her daughter, the second defendant in respect of suit second schedule, item no.3, dwelling house. The said property stands in the name of first defendant under Ex.A7 sale deed. As D.W.1 she would deposed that it was purchased by her out of her own funds and jewels. 26. Ex.A5 is the sale deed dated 13.08.1985 stands in the name of the first defendant. Ex.A6 is the sale deed dated 13.08.1985 stands in the name of first defendant. Ex.A7 is the sale deed dated 02.02.2001 stands in the name of the first defendant. 27. In the above narrated facts, it was father who purchased these properties. The normal presumption is that such purchases were made for the benefit of his wife. At this juncture, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a judgment reported in Valliammal (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Subramanian , 2004 (7) SCC 233 , it has been held that whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court spelt out the following six circumstances which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction:- 1. the source from which the purchase money came; 2. the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; 3. motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; 4. the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged bemamidar; 5. the custody of the title deeds after the sale; 6. the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. Apart from the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3, one son, Dilipan was also one of the legal heir to the first defendant and the deceased Rajasekaran. The said Dilipan died in the year 1990 due to road accident. D.W.1 to D.W.3 in their evidence, they admitted that Rajasekar was doing real estate business and out of that he had earned income. They also admitted that the theatre was running in a profitable manner and Rajasekar has formed layout and sold in the name of Rajagobal Nagar in Thoothukudi. D.W.1 to D.W.3 in their evidence, they admitted that Rajasekar was doing real estate business and out of that he had earned income. They also admitted that the theatre was running in a profitable manner and Rajasekar has formed layout and sold in the name of Rajagobal Nagar in Thoothukudi. D.W.1 in her cross examination admits that she was not working before her marriage or after her marriage. She had no independent income and she had received money from her father, which was derived from out of agricultural income. She admits that item 1 and 2 in second schedule were purchased first time in her family and the same has been purchased in her name out of wishes of her brothers and sisters. She admits that third item in second schedule is the house property and in which, the cable TV dish was installed. Though D.W.1 deposed that she had purchased item No.3 in second schedule for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- she not chosen to produce any documents to show her independent income to purchase the same and not examined any independent witnesses to that effect. D.W.3, who is a brother of D.W.1, deposed that in item 3 in second schedule a house has been constructed for a sum of Rs.55,00,000/-. D.W.1 has not explained source of money to construct the building therein. D.W. 4 deposed that her mother has no independent income. She has cordial relationship with her mother. 28. From the evidence of D.W.1, D.W,3 and D.W.4 and through Ex.A5 to Ex.A7 shows that the suit second schedule items are purchased by father of the plaintiff, Late. Rajasekaran from out of the joint family funds, i.e. derived from suit first schedule properties and in the name of the first defendant. The first defendant is only a name lender. In view of the above, plaintiff is entitled to claim his ¼ undivided share in the suit second schedule properties. 29. It is seen from the records that originally Kamala and Jeyanthi have filed the suit in O.S.No.192 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi on 04.07.2014. Pursuant to the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.77 of 2015 dated 19.10.2016 by the Principal District Court, it was transferred to District Court, Tuticorin and the same suit was renumbered as O.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticoin. Pursuant to the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.77 of 2015 dated 19.10.2016 by the Principal District Court, it was transferred to District Court, Tuticorin and the same suit was renumbered as O.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticoin. It is pertinent to mention that Ex.A19 settlement deed came to be registered on 13.03.2014, thereafter, within four months, they have filed the suit in O.S.No.192 of 2014 for the relief of mandatory injunction ie., evicting Parthiban from the suit schedule properties (which is shown as suit second schedule, 3 rd item, dwelling house in O.S.No.50 of 2014). Though Kamala/1 st defendant claimed the aforesaid property is a absolute property, she has not chosen to file the suit for declaration of title, instead along with her daughter filed the suit for eviction. In view of the discussion in aforesaid paragraphs, no doubt, the first defendant/Kamala has right to settle to the extent of her undivided ¼ share in favour of her daughter/second defendant, but the first defendant cannot execute the entire, suit second schedule, 3 rd item. 30. We are of the view that insofar as the suit third schedule properties, married daughter, second defendant/Jeyanthi made purchase in her name, so provision of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act will come and legal impediment for the plaintiff to claim right over the said properties. In such circumstances, findings of the trial Court holding that the suit third schedule properties are joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled for ¼ undivided share is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said findings is set aside, to that effect, preliminary decree passed by the trial Court is also to be modified. 31. In the result: a) first appeal in A.S.(MD)No.32 of 2023 is partly allowed. b) first appeal in A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2023 is dismissed. c) the preliminary decree passed in common judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 is modified in the following terms:- i) the suit third schedule properties are absolute properties of the second defendant/Jeyanthi and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right or share over the suit third schedule properties. ii) all other aspects in the common judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.50 of 2014 & O.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st Additional District Court, Tuticorin, is hereby confirmed. d) there shall be no orders as to costs. ii) all other aspects in the common judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.50 of 2014 & O.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st Additional District Court, Tuticorin, is hereby confirmed. d) there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.