Applicability of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act.

A score and a year ago, the foundation for the present appeals was laid by the institution of a suit for partition in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli. The 6th defendant in the suit is the appellant in both the appeals while the plaintiffs are the respondents.

2. It is better to have the genealogy of the family to which the parties belong in order to appreciate the facts comfortably hereunder:-

3. There was an earlier litigation in the family in O. S. No. 50 of 1925 which ended in a compromise decree whereby Palanikumar Pillai and his seven sons divided their joint family properties. After the death of Palanikumar Pillai there was a family arrangement on 02-01-1926 under which his second wife Ponnammal was to enjoy the properties described in schedules I and III in the present suit for her life. It was also agreed that after her lifetime, the first schedule was to be taken absolutely by the seven sons of Palanikumar Pillai and the third schedule was to be taken exclusively by Subbiah Pillai the eldest son of Ponnammal. While the appellant is the son of Subbiah by his first wife, respondents 3 to 6 are the sons by his second wife, who is the 7th respondent. The contest in these appeals is one directly between the appellant on the one hand and respondents 3 to 7 on the other.

4. Continuing the narrative, the third schedule was allotted to Subbiah on condition that he should pay a sum of Rs. 214 to each of the other six sons of Palanikumar Pillai, by way of owelty on the footing that the value of the third schedule property which is a small house with some appurtenant land was Rs.1500. There was a partition arrangement under a deed dt.26-10-1942 between Subbiah Pillai and his sons by the second wife on the one hand and the appellant herein on the other with reference to the properties allotted to Subbiah Pillai in the compromise decree in O.S. 50 of 1925. The present suit properties were not the subject-matter of that partition as Ponnammal was alive. Subbiah Pillai died in 1951 and Ponnammal died on 17-8-1966.

5. Thereafter, the present litigation was initiated by the plaintiffs, the first of them being a grandson of the first wife of Palanikumara Pillai, the second being the last son of Palanikumara Pillai, by his second wife and the rest being Subbiah Pillai second wife and her sons. The plaintiffs prayed for partition and separate possession of 91-1/2 cents in item 1 of the first schedule, 5/12 share in item 2 of the first schedule and 5/12 share in the second schedule and 3/8 share of plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 7 in item 3 of the first schedule. They also prayed for allotment and separate possession of the third schedule to plaintiffs 3 to 7. As regards the third schedule house, with which we are now concerned, it was the case of the plaintiffs that the appellant herein had relinquished his interest therein under the partition arrangement dt. 26-10-1942, referred to earlier. It was on that basis, they prayed for allotment of the house entirely to plaintiffs 3 to 7. The appellant resisted their claim. It was found by the trial court as well as the appellate court that the appellant had relinquished his interest in the third schedule property under the partition of 1942, and consequently the title of plaintiffs 3 to 7 to the third schedule house was declared subject to their payment of Rs. 214-28 to each of the other six sharers, viz. plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. The appellant herein filed S.A. 854 of 1971 in this court and by judgment dated 23-8-1973, this court held that there was no relinquishment by the appellant of his 1/6th share in the third schedule property. As per the judgment of this court, the appellant was declared entitled to 1/42 share in Schedule I and 1/6 share in schedule III.

6. The plaintiffs filed I.A.146 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, for passing a final decree even while the second appeal was pending in this court. That application was dismi