ISMAIL, J. :- The first defendant in O. S. No. 187 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the appellant herein. There was a joint Hindu family consisting of one Duraiswami Varamarayar and his three sons, Chandrasekhara Varamaravar, Gnanasekhara Varamaravar and Veerasekhara Varamarayar, the appellant herein. The father died about ten years prior to the institution of the suit. Thereafter the joint family continued comprising of the three brothers alone. Chandrasekhara died in the year 1964, survived by his widow, the 2nd defendant, and his children, defendants 3 to 7 in the suit. Later in November 1964, Gnanasekhara also died survived by his widow the 1st plaintiff and the only minor daughter the 2nd plaintiff. The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs for partition and for recovery of mesne profits. Their case was that in the beginning of 1961, there was a division of the family properties as between the three brothers by the intervention of panchayatdars and a list was prepared allotting the properties to all the three brothers. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint A schedule properties were allotted to Chandrasekhara, the plaint B Schedule properties were allotted to Gnanasekhara, the plaint C Schedule properties were allotted to the appellant and the plaint D Schedule properties were kept in common. Their further case was that the parties contemplated execution of a regular partition deed later; that notwithstanding the preparation of the list, it was the 1st defendant who was looking after all the properties; that the 1st defendant did not give the share of the produce out of the properties belonging to the deceased Gnanasekhara as well as the properties kept in common, namely, the plaint D Schedule properties; and that it occasioned the institution of the suit. Consistent with their case that a partition had already taken place in 1961, the plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the plaint B Schedule properties and partition and allotment of an one-third share in the plaint D Schedule properties with the consequential relief of recovery of mesne profits in respect of the said properties. Alternatively they prayed for partition of the entire plaint-schedule properties and allotment of an one-third share to the plaintiffs. One specific item with reference to which a claim was made by the plaintiffs was based on the allegation that after the death of Gnanasekhara, the appellant herein sold away casuarina trees of the value of Rs. 30,000/- and not a single pie out of the same was paid to the plaintiffs representing the share of Gnanasekhara.

2. The appellant herein resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. According to him, there was no partition as alleged by the plaintiffs in the beginning of 1961. He also put forward a contention that items 38 to 46 covered by plaint D schedule, though purchased in the name of Duraiswami Varamarayar, father of the appellant, really belonged to Maragathammal, sister of the appellant, who had come and was living with the family of the appellant since about 40 years prior to the institution of the suit, that the said properties were purchased out of her own separate funds and that consequently they did not belong to the joint family. Barring the above contention, the 1st defendant did not have any objection to have the admitted items of family properties divided into three shares and one share being allotted to the plaintiffs in the suit. His further contention was that the sum of Rs. 30,000/-by way of sale of casuarina trees was obtained even during the lifetime of Chandrasekhara and Gnanasekhara; that they had spent away the said amount and that therefore the plaintiffs had no right to claim any share therein. His further case was that the

family was doing Guru pooja by spending about Rs. 500/- on the anniversary day every year for one Ayyakannu Samiar, who was the paternal uncle of the 1st defendant-appellant and his brothers; that