1. We are concerned in the second appeal with only the B schedule property, an extent of 10 cents and a half, being one half of a larger property.

2. Plaintiffs 1, 4 and 5 are the appellants; and the 21st defendant is the contesting first respondent. The appellants and the other plaintiffs are the children and grandchildren of a Mathevan; and Mathevan made a settlement of the whole property early in 1119 M.E. in favour of the plaintiffs claiming that the entire property (21 cents) belonged to him. A few months after, Mathevan's sister by name Chinna executed Ex. D10, a possessory mortgage, in favour of the first respondent in Karkadakam 1119 and put the mortgagee in possession of the entire property (21 cents) claiming that she was entitled to the property solely. Subsequently, Chinna filed O.S. No. 4 of 1120 for setting aside the settlement deed executed by Mathevan in favour of the plaintiffs. That litigation ultimately reached this Court; and this Court decided (Ex. P4 being the judgment) that Mathevan and Chinna were entitled to the 21 cents in moieties. Ex. P4 was on 29th November 1957; and thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition and separate