ORDER

We have heard the counsel on both sides. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 212/83. It has a chequered history. By order dated July 27, 1992 in C.A. No. 2718/92 this Court remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether there was any family arrangement. The High Court has held that there is no family arrangement. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the partition of the property and allotment of his share in terms thereof. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. The only quesiton raised by Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior counsel for the appellant is : whether the members of the family, there was the arrangement under which the appellant was put in possession of the entire property and he has been in possession right from 1977 under the family arrangement? The case of the respondents is that the father had the property at a partition with his brothers and the property, therefore, is self-acquired property. Equally the case of the 5th respondent is that his mother also conveyed her own interest. Therefore, it is not partible. It would be obvious that