JUDGMENT: This second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Periyar District at Erode made in A.S.No.169 of 1986, dated 25.10.1988 confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.9.1986 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam made in O.S.No.61 of 1985. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint mentioned properties with the following averments. The first plaintiff and first defendant were sisters and were daughters of one Pachiappa Nadar while the defendants 2 and 3 were the sons of the first defendant. The second plaintiff and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were the daughters and sons of one Palaniammal who was another daughter of Pachiappa Nadar, who has got two sons by name Meyappan and Kunjaram. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 have brother by name Ravindran who were not added as parties since they were involved in a murder case. Pachiappa Nadar died under suspicious circumstances and the defendants who were enemically disposed with Meyyappan and Kunjaram had implicated them for the cause of the death of Pachiappa Nadar, in a murder case. Pachiappa Nadar and Chenniappa Nadar had divided the ancestral property on 26.3.1941 and ‘A’ Schedule properties were allotted to Pachiappa Nadar. Pachiappa Nadar got the property along with his sons and daughters jointly. After partition, Pachiappa Nadar and his sons with their joint efforts and joint labour earned and purchased some properties and they sold some of the properties to the third parties and with that income they purchased some other properties from third parties and continued the joint family for ever until his death. Pachiappa Nadar executed a lease deed in favour of his sons in the month of September, 1980 in respect of the suit properties and put them in possession. As he was bodily in-firm and could not attend his daily works, his sons and sons-in-laws gave proper medical treatment, at various places and inspite of best treatment he could not recover and regain his conscience and subsequently died. When he was in bed and when his sons and son-in-laws were away the defendants have got some documents in their favour defeating the rights of the sons and other daughters of Pachiappa Nadar. Those documents were forged and got up when he has, lost his conscience and senses. When he was in bed and when his sons and son-in-laws were away the defendants have got some documents in their favour defeating the rights of the sons and other daughters of Pachiappa Nadar. Those documents were forged and got up when he has, lost his conscience and senses. The documents dated 17.11.1982 and the subsequent Will dated 5.1.1983 were invalid and not to be enforced against the plaintiffs and others. The defendants cannot be allowed with the said documents in their favour against the plaintiffs. Since Meyyappan and Kunjaram were in jail undergoing the imprisonment, there is scrample for possession. The defendants managed to disturb the families of Meyyappan and Kunjaram with police influence. Hence the plaintiffs have got right over the property and the partition of their share have to be done at this stage subject to the rights of the sons of Pachiappa Nadar depending upon the murder case against them. Hence, the suit might be allowed. 3. In the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 3, it is alleged as follows: Meyyappan and Kunjaram, the sons of Pachiappa Nadar have set up the plaintiffs to file the suit. Pachiappa Nadar was murdered on 7.2.1983 by his two sons and his daughter-in-law and grandson Ravindranathan. Meyyappan, Kunjaram and Ravindranathan were sentenced to life imprisonment in S.C.No.103 of 1984 before the District Court, Erode and undergoing sentence. They filed an appeal before the High Court. Meyyappan and Kunjaram created bogus lease deeds and filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 1983 claiming leasehold rights. The said two sons and grandson of Pachiappa Nadar were necessary parties to the suit. The description of the properties was erroneous and vague. The said description is not sufficient to identify or locate the suit property. The resurvey numbers were not given, and thus without the present extent, the relief of partition cannot be granted. The averments that Pachiappa Nadar and his sons put forth joint efforts and earned and purchased properties; that they jointly sold the properties and purchased some other properties; that due to old age he executed a lease deed in favour of his sons and put them in possession and that he was bodily in-firm and could not attend his duties and that his sons and son-in-laws gave medical treatment in various places were false. They were invented to get over and nullify the will dated 5.1.1983 executed by Pachiappa Nadar in his sound disposing state of mind and out of his free will in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. The Will was registered by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Gobi in Will Case No.1 of 1984, wherein the plaintiffs were served with notice and they engaged a counsel. The Joint Registrar passed an order registering the will, which is binding upon the plaintiffs and it has become final. The suit was barred by res judicata. The plaintiffs have not filed any appeal against the order passed by the Joint Registrar. They have no title to the suit properties. For the past 25 years and more, the first plaintiff was not in the family and she was excluded and ousted from the suit properties plaintiffs 2 to 4 never enjoyed the suit properties. The suit cannot be maintained without declaring the right, and title of the plaintiffs to the suit property. Pachiappa Nadar in his early days was doing business and from the income got out of such business and he purchased S.F.331 and 333 from one Palaniammal on 6.11.1942. He was also doing money lending business. He subsequently purchased from his own funds S.No.332 in 1957 from Jagadish Iyer. He built a terraced house in 1962. He was hale and healthy till his death. He himself contested the suit in O.S.No.46 of 1983. The joint family status came to an end long before. The family arrangement took place about 17 years back between Pachiappa Nadar and his two sons, in which S.F.518 and 619 were allotted to Meyyappan and Kunjaram exclusively. It was decided that Pachiappa Nadar’s separate and self acquired properties viz., S.F.331, 332 and 333 should be retained and enjoyed by him and the sons should not put forth any claim. When Pachiappa Nadar was alive, he executed two settlement deeds on 17.11.1982 in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs have no right to question the said documents, as per which the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the properties. It was not made clear as to how the plaintiffs claim 4 out of 7 shares in the suit property. There was no cause of action for the suit. Hence the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. It was not made clear as to how the plaintiffs claim 4 out of 7 shares in the suit property. There was no cause of action for the suit. Hence the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and decreed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants preferred an appeal before the District Court wherein the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. The defeated defendants have brought forth this second appeal. 5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated: (1) Whether a father-manager of the joint Hindu Family can give away a reasonable portion of the joint family property to the daughters by way of gift? (2) Whether the adverse inference can be drawn on the ground that the Will was not registered immediately after the execution? (3) Whether the party to the suit can let in evidence which is quite contrary to this own pleadings? (4) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in not discussing the question of non-joinder of parties? 6. This second appeal is preferred from the judgment of the lower appellate Court, confirming the judgment of the trial Court in a suit, wherein a preliminary decree for partition was granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 herein. (4) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in not discussing the question of non-joinder of parties? 6. This second appeal is preferred from the judgment of the lower appellate Court, confirming the judgment of the trial Court in a suit, wherein a preliminary decree for partition was granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 herein. Arguing for the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that there was no proper description of the property in the plaint; that further the resurvey numbers of the property were also not given; that in the plaint it is simply mentioned half of the survey number, but nothing was given stating whether the half was the eastern side or the western side or southern side or northern side and hence it would not be possible for the Commissioner to be appointed at the final decree stage to divide the property because it was not specifically stated in the plaint as to which portion of the property belonged to Pachiappa Nadar; that as per O.7, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure where the subject matter of the suit was the immovable property, plaint should contain the description of the property sufficiently to identify it and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers on record or settlement or survey, the plaint should contain the description of the property sufficient to identify it; that both the Courts were in error in holding that the mistake and the defect were no serious and the same could be corrected at any time before the decree was passed; that the plaint schedule properties were not joint family properties of Pachiappa Nadar; that from the available evidence it would be clear that the suit property could not have been purchased from the income of the joint family property; that the property purchased under Ex.A-4 could not have been purchased by utilising the sale proceeds under Ex.A-3; that Pachiappa Nadar as the Manager of the joint family had power to give any joint family property to his daughter and grand children; that the father-manager can give away a reasonable portion of the joint family property to the daughters; that the reasons given by the Courts below fro holding that Exs.B-5 and B-6 were not valid and binding on the plaintiffs were erroneous and unacceptable; that the said Pachiappa Nadar when he was alive, was hale and healthy and he was in sound and disposing state of mind and has executed a Will bequeathing some properties in favour of the appellants 2 and 3 and both the Courts should have accepted the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants and should have dismissed the suit; that Ex.B-7 Will was genuine and not brought into existence in the signed paper of Pachiappa Nadar as found by the lower Courts; that there was no allegation in the plaint that the will has been brought into existence on a signed paper subsequently, but on the other hand what was averred in the plaint was that it was a forged one; that the reasons given by the lower Courts for holding that Ex.B-7 executed by Pachiappa Nadar on 5.1.1983 was not proved by the defendants were erroneous and thus both the Courts below without proper appreciation of evidence should not have decreed the suit and hence the judgment of the Courts below have got to be set aside and the suit has got to be dismissed. 7. When the matter was called, there was no representation for the respondents. 8. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3 whose defence was not accepted by both the Courts below in a suit filed by the respondents seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule mentioned properties. The relationship of the parties as found in the plaint is not in dispute. The plaintiffs sought the relief of partition specifically averring that the suit properties were the joint family properties of Pachiappa Nadar and his two sons viz., Meyyappan and Kunjaram. What was contended by the appellants before the Courts below and equally here also is that the suit properties were not properly described and hence they could not be identified; that the properties in respect of which partition was sought for were not joint family properties, but exclusively belonged to Pachiappa Nadar; that Pachiappa Nadar executed Exs.B-5 and B-6 settlement deeds on 17.11.1982 in respect of some of the properties in favour of his daughters and grand daughters and that he has executed Ex.B-7 Will on 5.1.1983 bequeathing some of the properties in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the description of the properties in the plaint was not sufficient to grant the relief, since resurvey numbers were not given and further it is found in the plaint that it was a specific half share in the property in particular survey numbers, but it was not stated where this half share was situated and hence a division of the property was not possible and thus the decree even if granted could not be executed. In a given case where the subject matter of the suit was an immovable property, what are all required to be stated in respect of the property was that a description of the property which would be sufficient to identify the same. In the instant case it cannot be stated that the properties in question could not be identified. It is not in dispute that the survey number of the property and the place where it is situated were given. It is true that the resurvey numbers were not given. In the instant case it cannot be stated that the properties in question could not be identified. It is not in dispute that the survey number of the property and the place where it is situated were given. It is true that the resurvey numbers were not given. It is pertinent to note that the defendants in the courses of the written statement and at the time of the trial also have adduced evidence in respect of the identical properties, over which the respondents claimed partition. Under the stated circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the lower appellate Court, those mistakes could be rectified, since the identity of the properties was well understood by both the parties and in particular, only after a clear understanding, the defendants have let in evidence on their side, and hence on that ground it cannot be held that the suit was not maintainable. 10. The next area of controversy between the parties was whether the suit properties belonged to the joint family of or exclusive properties of Pachiappa Nadar. Concededly there was a family partition between Pachiappa Nadar and his brother Chenniappa Nadar in the year 1942 as evidenced by Ex.A-1 partition deed. The properties what came to the hands of Pachiappa Nadar under Ex.A-1 were under the hands of Pachiappa Nadar and his two sons. Though it was urged by the appellants that the suit properties belonged to Pachiappa Nadar exclusively, no material was placed before the Court to show that Pachiappa Nadar was doing any business separately. Item No.1 of the Schedule mentioned property was purchased under Ex.A-2 on 6.11.1942 for a consideration of Rs.1,500 out of which the vendor already received Rs.1,000 while the balance of consideration was paid on the date of Ex.A-2. While the family partition had taken place in the year 1941, the properties under Ex.A-2 were purchased in the year 1942. Pachiappa Nadar and his two sons sold some properties in Survey Nos.479 and 486 under Ex.A-3. A perusal of Ex.A-3 would clearly reveal that the said property was sold by them for purchasing some other property. Accordingly following the said sale, item No.5 of the schedule mentioned property was purchased under Ex.A-4 and hence it cannot be disputed that the sale proceeds under Ex.A-3 were utilised for the purchase of item No.5 under Ex.A-4. A perusal of Ex.A-3 would clearly reveal that the said property was sold by them for purchasing some other property. Accordingly following the said sale, item No.5 of the schedule mentioned property was purchased under Ex.A-4 and hence it cannot be disputed that the sale proceeds under Ex.A-3 were utilised for the purchase of item No.5 under Ex.A-4. It remains to be stated that the two sons of Pachiappa Nadar joined with him in executing Ex.A-3. Equally the two sons of Pachiappa Nadar had also jointed with him in the execution of the sale under Ex.A-5 on 13.6.1960. Thus all the sale deeds executed by Pachiappa Nadar along with his two sons would be indicative of the fact that those properties belonged to the joint family and the recitals in those deeds were pointing to the purchase of the properties made by them out of those sale proceeds. The Courts below have rightly rejected the evidence of D.W.1 stating that the items 1 and 5 belonged to Pachiappa Nadar since they were purchased out of his separate income, on the ground that D.W.1 could not have been born on the date when the documents came into existence. In view of the absence of any material to show that Pachiappa Nadar was having any separate business and in view of the available evidence as discussed above, without any difficulty it can be held that the properties belonged to Pachiappa Nadar and his two sons and not exclusive properties of Pachiappa Nadar, as contended by the appellants’ side. 11. The next contention that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the father/ manager of the hindu joint family could give away a reasonable portion of the joint family property to his daughters by way of gift and in view of the said proposition of law, the two settlement deeds executed by Pachiappa Nadar under Exs.B-5 and B-6, dated 17.11.1982 have to be held valid. The Court is of the considered view that the said proposition of law cannot be applied to the present facts of the case. Ex.B-5 was executed by Pachiappa Nadar in favour of his grand daughters viz., the defendants 2 and 3 and Ex.B-6 in favour of his daughter the first defendant, both on 17.11.1982. The Court is of the considered view that the said proposition of law cannot be applied to the present facts of the case. Ex.B-5 was executed by Pachiappa Nadar in favour of his grand daughters viz., the defendants 2 and 3 and Ex.B-6 in favour of his daughter the first defendant, both on 17.11.1982. It has been found above that the suit properties belonged to the joint family of Pachiappa Nadar and his two sons. The said Pachiappa Nadar was the Manager of the joint family. Hence the question that would arise for consideration would be whether Pachiappa Nadar as the Manager of the joint family had any power to make a gift of the joint family properties. It is true that it has been settled that the Hindu father or any managing member is vested with powers to make a gift of the ancestral immovable property to a reasonable extent for picous purposes, which would include the instances in which the gift within the reasonable limits of the immovable property is made by the Hindu father, to his daughter in fulfilment of an antenuptial promise made at the time of the settlement of the terms of her marriage and the same can also be done by the mother in case the father is dead. It is not the case of the appellant that the gifts under Ex.B-5 and B-6 were made for any fulfilment of the antenuptial promise. There is nothing to show that those gift deeds were executed for any pious obligation. It is true that out of 16 1/2 acres of lands, 1 1/2 acres was given by way of gift under Ex.B-6 and thus it could not be stated that it was exceeding the reasonable limit. The lower Court has rightly rejected the contention of the appellants that the gift under Ex.B-6 was given to his daughter, for maintenance, since the said document did not contain any such recital. Those gift deeds have to be necessarily found invalid since they were executed by Pachiappa Nadar as Manager of the Hindu joint family without the reasons, purposes and circumstances as required by law to make a gift of the ancestral immovable property within the reasonable limits. 12. The next contention that was put forth by the appellants’ side was regarding Ex.B-7 Will dated 5.1.1983. 12. The next contention that was put forth by the appellants’ side was regarding Ex.B-7 Will dated 5.1.1983. The genuineness of the said will was disputed by the respondents contending that it was forged one. At the time of trial, the defendants have examined two attesting witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3. After careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the respondents in respect of the said will, the Court has to necessarily agree with the findings of the Courts below. The first and strong suspicious circumstance was that Ex.B-7 was found dated 5.1.1983, but the same was registered only on 26.3.1985, after a long lapse of two years and that too after the death of Pachiappa Nadar. Another circumstances which would be indicative of the fact that Ex.B-7 Will could not be true and genuine, was that the signature of Pachiappa Nadar in the first page of the document was seen very close to the writings while the signature in page 2 was found about 7 lines below the writings. Both the above circumstances would be pointing to the fact that Ex.B-7 should have come into existence by creating a will utilising the blank papers in which the signatures of Pachiappa Nadar were already obtained. Only after thorough analysis of the evidence of the said attesting witnesses viz., D.Ws.2 and 3, both the Courts have rejected their testimony as unbelievable. Thus both the Courts below were perfectly correct in recording a finding that Ex.B-7 will was not proved. 13. The last contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that both the Courts below have not properly allotted the respective shares to the parties, since it has not taken notice of the fact that Pachiappa Nadar was murdered; that the two sons of Pachiappa Nadar viz., Meyyappan and Kunjaram were convicted and sentenced to life in S.C.No.193 of 1983, which on appeal was confirmed by this Court and hence in view of Sec.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, the said Meyyappan and Kunjaram who have committed the murder, were disqualified from inheriting the properties of their father who was murdered. The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the sons of Pachiappa Nadar viz., Meyyappan and Kunjaram were undergoing imprisonment and the plaintiffs had a right over the property and their share has to be declared subject to the rights of the sons of Pachiappa Nadar depending upon the murder case against them. The learned counsel for the appellants placed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 1984, dated 27.7.1988, wherein the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge made in S.C.No.193 of 1983 was confirmed. Sec.25 of the Hindu Sessions Act reads: “Sec.25: Murderer disqualified: A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder.” In view of the above provision of law, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants the two sons of Pachiappa Nadar viz., Meyyappan and Kunjaram were disqualified from inheriting the property of their father. As held above, the properties belonged to the joint family of Pachiappa Nadar and his two sons in which the sons of Pachiappa Nadar were entitled to 1/3rd each and the other 1/3rd which belonged to Pachiappa Nadar was liable to be divided among his children. As stated above, the two sons of Pachiappa Nadar viz., Meyyappan and Kunjaram were disqualified from inheriting the properties of Pachiappa Nadar, and hence the 1/3rd share of Pachiappa Nadar in the suit properties were to be divided by the two daughters of Pachiappa Nadar viz., the first plaintiff and the first defendant and the children of pre-deceased daughter by name Palaniammal. Therefore the first plaintiff/ first respondent is entitled to undivided 1/9th share while the respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to undivided 1/9th share in the suit properties. The judgment of the lower appellate Court has to be modified to the extent stated above. 14. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below are modified with regard to the allotment of shares. The first respondent is entitled to 1/9th undivided share while the respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to 1/9th undivided share in the suit properties. 14. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below are modified with regard to the allotment of shares. The first respondent is entitled to 1/9th undivided share while the respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to 1/9th undivided share in the suit properties. In other respect, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are confirmed. There shall be no order as to the costs.