1. Preliminary judgment and decree in a suit for partition passed by the learned Sub Judge, Palakkad, is challenged in this appeal. Second defendant is the appellant.

2. Sixteen items of immovable properties were included in the plaint, initially, for partition as belonging to the joint family of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 seeking division and allotment of l/4th share to plaintiff. Thirunavakarasu Udayar (for short Udayar), father of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and husband of first defendant, Kartha of the joint family, had passed away. After his death, plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, his sons, and first defendant, his widow, are entitled to l/4th share in the plaint properties, was the case of plaintiff. Later, plaint was amended to state that some items included in the plaint schedule were covered by a previous partition (Ext.Al) entered by Udayar and two of his sons (defendants 2 and 3), and, one more item of property was added as available for partition to sharers. Plaintiff was not a party to that deed. Items 3, 6 and 9 to 13 and 17 in the plaint are properties allotted in Ext.Al partition deed as 'A' schedule to the father, Udayar, and after his death, his widow and sons, all of them, have got equal share in those items, was the case in the amended plaint. Defendants 1 to 3, all of them, resisted the claim for partition over the items covered by 'A' schedule in Ext.Al deed allotted to Udayar contending that he had executed Ext.B3 will over those items in favour of three persons, widow of Sankaly Udayar (predeceased son of Udayar), second defendant's son and third defendant as A to C schedule respectively reserving life interest of his widow, first defendant in all the above properties.

3. Widow of Sankali Udayar and also daughter of a predeceased daughter of Thirunavakarasu Udayar got impleaded in the suit as additional 4th and 5th defendants respectively. Son of second defendant also got impleaded as additional sixth defendant.

4. Additional sixth defendant adopted the contentions of his father. Additional 5th defendant claimed share in the properties as the daughter of Parvathy, predeceased daughter of Udayar and first defendant. Additional fourth defendant impeaching the validity of Ext.Al partition deed contended that she was entitled to l/5th share in the properties covered by that deed also. She was not made a party to Ext.Al and also not provided with share, and therefore the partition effected was not binding on her, was her case. She contended that Ext.Al was entered only for escaping from payment of levy and she did not object to its execution since share of profits had been given to her. She also filed a petition with a schedule including all properties divided under Ext.Al for division in the suit with other items and allotment of her share in all items.

5. Plaintiff filing a rejoinder disputed the genuineness of Ext.B3 will contending that his father had no capacity to execute the will and it was created fraudulently by defendants 1 to 3. Challenge against Ext.Al partition deed was also resisted by him contending that except 'A1 schedule in the deed allotted to his father the other items allotted to other sharers are not available for partition.

6. The court below framed the following issues for adjudication.

1. Whether all the properties . included in the plaint schedule are partible?

2. Whether 2nd and 3rd defendants are entitled to any right over plaint A and B schedule properties by virtue of the alleged will stated to have been executed by deceased Thirunavukarasu Udayar?

3. If the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get any share from plaint schedule property, if so, what is the quantum?

5. Reliefs and costs?

The evidence consisted of PW1 and Exts.Al to A5 for plaintiff, and DW1 to DW3 and Exts.Bl to B3 for defendants.

7. With the impleadment of additional defendants 4 to 6 in the suit issue raised over nonjoinder of necessary p