Judgment : Unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial court are the appellants in this appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The suit property house originally belonged to one Periasamy Konar, the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and the husband of the fourth defendant. It was his self-acquired property. He was in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes. He died in or about 1962 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 as his only legal heirs to his estate. After the death of the said Periyasamy Konar, defendants 1 to 4 being the elder members of the family were permitted by the plaintiff to manage the suit property. The plaintiffs being the affectionate daughters used to visit the suit property and stay there once in two months for all the important days and festivals. Moreover, after the death of the said Periyasamy Konar, defendants 1 to 4 who were in management of the entire house used to pay the share of the plaintiffs from the rental income of the suit property and the plaintiffs were in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with defendants 1 to 4 as undivided co-owners. Now, the attitude of the defendants has been changed and the defendants are acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. It is not possible for the plaintiffs to continue to enjoy the suit property with defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession. The defendants are delaying and dodging unnecessarily. Defendants 1 to 4 are proposing to sell the suit property and they also created a sham and nominal sale deed in favour of the fifth defendant for a low price. Hence, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/6 share in the suit property and for rendition of account. .3. The written statement filed by the first defendant which was adopted by the second defendant contends as follows: .The suit property is not the self-acquired property of Periasamy and it is the ancestral joint family property and the suit property and other properties were acquired by one Ramasamy the paternal grandfather of the first defendant and the said Ramasamy died intestate leaving his three sons viz., Lakshmanan, Periasamy and Vellaichami as his heirs and leaving the properties. After the death of the said Ramasamy, in the year 1947, the said Lakshmanan, Vellaichamy and the father of the first defendant effected partition orally and at that time the suit property was allotted in favour of the father of the first defendant and being the male members defendants 1 to 3 along with their father being the heirs of the said Ramasamy inherited to the branch of the said Periasamy and as such the suit property was allotted by means of oral partition to defendants 1 to 3 and their father equally as one branch. Similarly the other branches were allotted some other properties by having Lakshmanan as Kartha for one branch and Vellaichamy as kartha for the other branch. So, the suit property is the ancestral property and it belongs to defendants 1 to 3 and their father Periasamy and it is not the self-acquired property of the said Periasamy. The Tax assessment also stands in the name of Periasamy. The said Periasamy is still alive and even on 210. 1963 the marriage of the second plaintiff was conducted by him with one Ramaiah and the marriage was done in the presence of the first defendants father on 210. 1963. So, the case of the plaintiffs that the father Periasamy died is not true. One Periakaruppan who is the distant relative of the defendants had also seen the father of the first defendant in Thai 1984 at Palani Murugan temple as Sanniyasi. The father of the first defendant Periasamy used to go all the temples all over India and prior to three years he met his son the first defendant and demanded Rs.1,000 for his expenses and the first defendant also paid Rs.100 to his father for his yathra expenses. So, the father of defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs is very much alive. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled to partition and separate possession. 4. The suit was tried by the Sub-Judge, Ramanathapuram and it was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proving that their father Periasamy is dead and there is sufficient evidence to prove that Periasamy is alive and so, the question of right of succession claimed by the plaintiffs does not arise. 5. Aggrieved against that judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have come forward with this appeal. 6. 5. Aggrieved against that judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have come forward with this appeal. 6. In the appeal, the appellant contends that Periasamy Konar is dead and he did not print the invitation Ex.B-1 and the whereabouts of Periasamy Konar is not known for the past 20 years and there is also no joint family nucleus to purchase the suit property and so, the finding of the trial court that the suit property is the ancestral property and also Periasamy is alive is not sustainable and the judgment and decree of the trial court is liable to be set aside. .7. Point for consideration is whether the suit property is the self-acquired property or ancestral property and whether the plaintiffsfather Periasamy Konar is dead as conceded by the plaintiffs. 8. The plaintiffs are the daughters and defendants 1 to 3 are sons and the fourth defendant is the wife of Periasamy Konar. The fifth defendant is the alienee. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is the self-acquired property of their father Periasamy. The defendants contend that it is the ancestral property. 9. The second plaintiff as P.W.1 speaks in her evidence that the suit property is the self-acquired property of her father. The tax registry stands in his name. The first defendant as D.W.1 speaks in his evidence that his grandfather was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and an oral partition took pace in the year 1947 and the suit property was allotted to his father and the other properties were given to his paternal uncle and from the date of partition in the year 1947, his father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and it is the ancestral property. No document is filed in the name of the plaintiffs father Periasamy to show that he only purchased the suit property. P.W.1 in her evidence states that she does not know as to when and from whom her father purchased the suit property. Except the interested testimony of P.W.1 and the vague contention raised in the plaint, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the suit property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiffs father. On the other hand, there is ample evidence on the side of the defendants to prove that the suit property is the ancestral property. Except the interested testimony of P.W.1 and the vague contention raised in the plaint, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the suit property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiffs father. On the other hand, there is ample evidence on the side of the defendants to prove that the suit property is the ancestral property. D.W.1 has stated in his evidence that his paternal grandfather Ramasamy Konar has acquired the suit property and other properties and his paternal grandfather had three sons viz., Lakshmanan Konar, Vellaichamy Konar and Periasamy Konar. D.W.1s evidence is that after the death of the said Ramasamy Konar, there was a partition in the year 1947 in which the suit property was allotted to his father Periasamy Konar and the suit property situate at Moolakothalam was allotted to Lakshmanan Konar and Vellaichamy Konar. D.W.1 was aged about 18 years at the time of the said partition. No document is filed on the side of the defendants to show that the suit property was purchased by their paternal grandfather Ramasamy Konar. The son of Lakshmanan Konar has been examined as D.W.3. He is aged about 58 years. He states that the partition took place in the year 1947 and the suit property was allotted to Periasamy Konar while the properties at Moolakothalam were allotted to his father Lakshmanan Konar and his junior paternal uncle Vellaichamy Konar. There is the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 on the side of the defendants to prove that the suit property is the ancestral property and partition took place in the family of the father of defendants 1 to 3 and their junior paternal uncle and the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs father Periasamy Konar in that partition. D.Ws.1 and 3 were present at the time of the oral partition and they have clearly spoken in their evidence with regard to the oral partition. 10. On the perusal of the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3, I find no reason at all to reject their oral testimony. The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 amply proves that the suit property is the ancestral property. Except the interested testimony of P.W.1, absolutely there is no evidence with regard to the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property is the self-acquired property of Periasamy. The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 amply proves that the suit property is the ancestral property. Except the interested testimony of P.W.1, absolutely there is no evidence with regard to the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property is the self-acquired property of Periasamy. On a perusal of the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 and in the absence of any documentary proof for purchase of the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs father Periasamy, it can be safely concluded that the suit property is the joint family property. 11. The documentary evidence of Exs.A-6 to A-8 also supports the case of the defendants. From Exs.A-7 and A-8, it is seen that the suit property, was purchased in court auction in favour of Lakshmanan Konar who is the father of D.W.3. The recital in Ex.A-6 mortgage deed dated 210. 1963 proves that the suit property was acquired by the ancestors. Ex.A-6 proves that the suit property was purchased in court auction by Ramasamy Konar and after him, the partition took place in the family in the year 1948 and the suit property was allotted to the share of the father of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 have executed Ex.A-6 in favour of one Govindammal. The recital in Ex.A-6 proves that the suit property was purchased by the paternal grandfather of the defendants Ramasamy Konar in court auction and the partition took place in that family in which the suit property was allotted to the father Periasamy Konar. Ex.A-6 supports the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3. So, it is borne out from the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 and Ex.A-6 that the suit property is the ancestral property. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the suit property is the self-acquired property. 12. The trial court analysed the oral evidence and also Ex.A-6 and has correctly found that Ex.A-6 came into existence long prior to the disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants and has placed reliance on the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 and Ex.A-6 and has come to the correct conclusion that the suit property is the ancestral property and it is not the self-acquired property. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Judge in this aspect. 13. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Judge in this aspect. 13. The trial court found that Periasamy is alive and there is no evidence to prove that he is dead and so, the right of succession for the plaintiffs does not arise and on that ground dismissed the suit. 14. The plaintiffs have not filed any document or death certificate to prove with regard to the death of Periasamy. Even though the plaintiffs have stated that their father died in the year 1962 in the pleading, they have let in evidence by examining P.W.2 that their father Periasamy left the house when P.W.2 was 12 or 13 years old and he does not know whether he is alive or not and he does not know his whereabouts. There was no such pleading in the plaint. The pleading in the plaint is entirely different from the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs. So, there is no evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to prove that their father Periasamy is dead and succession is open to them. The pleading in the plaint is not consistent with the evidence let in by the plaintiffs. 15. The defendants rely upon Ex.B-1 printed marriage invitation of the second plaintiff on 263. Ex.B-1 was printed by Periasamy Konar. On a perusal of Ex.B-1, it is seen that Periasamy Konar has printed that invitation and he was alive in the year 1963. Ex.B-1 proves that it was printed by a living person Periasamy and he was very much alive in the year 1963. So, the contention of the plaintiffs that their father Periasamy died in the year 1962 is not acceptable. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek their relief. There is no evidence at all to prove that Periasamy Konar is dead. As rightly held by the trial court, the plaintiffs have not discharged their burden of proving with regard to the death of their father Periasamy. The finding of the trial court in that aspect also cannot be interfered with. 116. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the property in which the plaintiffs sought for partition and separate possession is the dwelling house and by invoking Sec.23 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is not open for the female to seek for partition and separate possession in the dwelling house. 117. 116. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the property in which the plaintiffs sought for partition and separate possession is the dwelling house and by invoking Sec.23 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is not open for the female to seek for partition and separate possession in the dwelling house. 117. Sec.23 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows: “Where a Hindu intestate has left surviving him or her both male and female heirs specified in Class I of the schedule and his or her property includes a dwelling house wholly occupied by members of his or her family, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the right of any such female heir to claim partition of the dwelling house shall not arise until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein; but the female heir shall be entitled to a right of residence therein. Provided that where such female heir is a daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in the dwelling house only if she is unmarried or has been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is a widow”. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants also relies upon the decision in Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1826 wherein the Supreme Court has held that, “Sec.23 applies and prohibits partition of dwelling house of the deceased Hindu male or female intestate, who left surviving sole male heir and female heir/heirs and the right to claim partition by female heir is kept in abeyance and deferred during the life of the male heir or till the partitions or ceases to occupy and enjoy it or lets it out or till at a partition action, equities are worked out.” The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra is that the right of female heir to claim partition in the dwelling house shall not arise until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein. So, the plaintiffs’ case has to fail even in this aspect. 19. In view of the above observation, I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share. Accordingly, I confirm the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.