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 Am