Bhavadasan, J.

This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, in which the defendants suffered a preliminary decree at the hands of the appellate court. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they are available before the Trial Court.

2. The suit for partition was laid on the allegation that Ext.A2 acquisition by Madhavi Amma was for and on behalf of the thavazhi of which she was the eldest female member, at the relevant time. Defendants 2 and 3 are her daughters and the rest of the parties are her grand children. It is alleged that Ext.A2 acquisition by Madhavi Amma, was utilising the funds of the thavazhi and it has been treated as a thavazhi property as would be evident from Exts. A5 to A7. Since the plaintiffs did not intend to continue joint possession, they sought partition of the property, claiming 42 shares out of 55.

3. Except defendants 4, 6, 12 and 13, the other defendants contested the suit. According to them, the plaint schedule property is not available for partition. The contention taken was that Ext.A2 acquisition was the self acquisition of Madhavi Amma, utilising her own funds and that was never treated as a thavazhi property. Madhavi Amma had assigned that property in 1960 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. The claim of joint possession etc., are without any basis. They also contended that if at all the plaintiffs had any manner of rights, the same had been lost by adverse possession and limitation. Along with the above contentions, they also pointed out that the suit is bad for partial partition because the property covered by Ext.A1 document has not been included in the plaint. They, therefore, prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and documents marked as Exts. A1 to A7 from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants examined DW1 and had Exts.B1 to B51 marked. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court came to the following conclusions:

(1) The acquisition under Ext.A2 was a self acquisition by Madhavi Amma.

(2) The assignment in favour of defendants 2 and 3 by Madhavi Amma is good and binding.

(3) Even if the plaintiffs and other sharers had any rights over the suit property, the same had been lost by adverse possession and limitation.

5. On the basis of the above findings, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal as AS No.350/82 before this Court. The first Appellate Court, on a reevaluation of the materials before it, came to the following conclusions:

(1) The acquisition under Ext.A2 was a self acquisition of Madhavi Amma.

(2) There was blending of the self acquired properties with the joint family properties and therefore, the plaint schedule property was available for partition.

6. On the basis of the above findings, the Trial Court decree was reversed and the suit was decreed, directing partition of the plaint schedule properties into 55 equal shares and allotment of 42 shares to the plaintiffs. The contesting defendants challenge the above Judgment and decree in this appeal.

7. The following questions of law are seen formulated in this memorandum of appeal:

“1. In the absence of any pleading in the memorandum of appeal, was the learned Single Judge correct in passing a preliminary decree for partition on the ground notwithstanding Ext.A2 acquisition by Madhavi Amma being separate and her own acquisition, there was a blending of the property by Smt. Madhavi Amma with the thavazhi property being possessed and enjoyed as one?

2. There was no contention at all by the plaintiffs in the appeal before the learned Single Judge that even if Ext.A2 was a separate acquisition by Smt. Madhavi Amma, nonetheless there is a blending of property with the thavazhi property enjoyed and possessed as one and therefore, liable for partition, was the learned Single Judge justified in law in the passing a preliminary decree for partition, on the gro