deed is in his custody and has not produced the same in the Court and in such view of the admission of the plaintiff, it is found that, as contended by the defendant, the suit property is the self acquired property of Rethina Padyachi and not his ancestral family property. Similarly, the grandson of Rethina Padyachi, namely, Kannan, who has been examined as PW3, during the course of cross examination has admitted that the suit property belongs to Rethina Padyachi and his father Muthukumarasamy, who is the only son of Rethina Padyachi. It is thus found that the suit property absolutely belonged to Rethina Padyachi and not his ancestral property. When, according to the plaintiff, the parent title deed disclosed that the suit property had been acquired by way of purchase by Rethina Padyachi, the case of the plaintiff that the same is his ancestral property and thereby, on his demise, his son and grandson would be entitled to share in the property, as such, cannot be accepted. Though the plaintiff is in the custody of the parent title deed, which would disclose the acquisition of the suit property by Rethina Padyachi, for the reasons best known to him, he has not cared to place the same before the Court for consideration. That apart, as above seen, the plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from Muthukumarasamy's curator and his wife Saroja and Kannan, PW3 by way of a sale deed dated 06.03.1982 and the copy of the same has been marked as Ex.A1. The plaintiff has not given any valid reason for the non-production of the original sale deed dated 06.03.1982. Be that as it may, on a perusal of http://www.judis.nic.in
