The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act and the principles related to joint family property, presumption of acquisition for the tavazhi, and the rebuttability of such presumption.

1. Devaki, the mother of the appellant, had eight children including the appellant. Item No.l property was purchased in 1929 by Devaki and five of her children who were then alive. In 1951 Devaki took an assignment of item No.2 property in her name which is situated adjacent to the other item. Devaki died in 1958. Almost two decades after, in December 1977, all the children of Devaki except the appellant (Sarojini) had assigned their rights in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff as per Exts.A3 and A4. The present suit for partition by metes and bounds has been filed by the plaintiff claiming that the plaintiff is entitled to 7/8 shares in the suit properties.

2. The defendant filed two written statements. The first ore is dated 26-6-1978 in which his main contention is that the right of the other members of the defendant's family had been orally assigned to the defendant in 1960 and he was put in absolute possession thereof and that the executants of Exts. A3 and A4 bad no right or title over the suit properties after 1960. It is further contended that the defendant got a certificate of purchase in respect of the jenmom right in the suit properties and the defendant has been enjoying them as the absolute owner.

3. In the second written statement filed by the defendant on 11-1-1979 she contended that Ext. Al acquisition was made by the defendant's father and it enured to the tavazhi consisting of Devaki and her children and item No. 2 was acquired in the name of his mother Devaki for the convenient enjoyment of the other item, and hence all the members of the tavazhi are now entitled to the suit properties.

4. The learned Sub-Judge did not accept the defendant's contentions. He found that item No.l was acquired by Devaki for herself and her children jointly and hence on the death of Devaki her rights devolved on her eight children. He has further found that item No.2 was acquired by Devaki alone and on Devaki's death her children became jointly entitled to it. Hence a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the court below declaring that plaintiff is entitled to 39/48 shares in item No. 1, and 1/8 share in item No. 2. The said preliminary decree is under challenge in this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that as item No.l was acquired by Devaki and her children (who were alive then) there is a presumption, that the acquisition was for the tavazhi of Devaki and her children. Hence with the abolition of joint family system in the year 1976 all the members of the tavazhi became entitled to the property. Though this contention was raised in the court below it did not find favour with the learned Sub Judge whose line of reasoning is as follows:

"There is no evidence on record to show that Devaki was not possessed of sufficient means to acquire this property. There is also no evidence to show that Devaki's husband was a man of means and that the consideration for Ext. A1 was paid by him. It has also to be noted that Ext. A1 is not a gift or a will by a marumakkathayee in favour of his wife or his wife and all the children. It is not an acquisition by a marumakkathayee male in favour of the above mentioned persons. As such a presumption regarding devolution of rights on a tavazhi cannot be drawn Ext.A1 purports to be an assignment by a marumakkathayee in favour of his niece and children. There is nothing in the document to indicate that the intention was to benefit the tavazhi constituted by the assignees and their descendants in the female line. It is seen that the consideration has been received from all the assignees jointly even though some of them are minors. All the assignees bad been conferred rights over the properties and they are to possess and enjoy the same. The value of improvements payable by the landlord in case of eviction has to be received by all of them jointly. In the face of these recitals contained in the document, it is futile for the defendant to contend that Ext.