The substantial questions of law arising in this second appeal are thus:

i. Is the finding of the courts below that the plaint schedule property did not form part of the joint family property of deceased Veluchami Erappa Kounder (hereinafter, "Veluchami") legally correct in the light of the available evidence?

ii. Does the judgment in Chittur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kumaran (1992 (1) KLT 216) apply to the facts and circumstances of this case? Does the ratio in the decision have an all pervasive application, regardless of the facts in each case?

iii. Are the findings by the courts below that marriage between deceased Veluchami and his second wife, the 1st appellant, was not legally valid and she is not entitled to any share in his properties correct?

2. Defendants 2 and 4 in O.S.No.124 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Chittur are the appellants. The plaintiff and other defendants are the respondents.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents 1 to 3.

4. The suit is one for partition with following averments: The properties belonged to Veluchami. He had married defendants 1 and 2. His first wife (1st defendant) died pending the