Plaintiff if barred from filing appeal.

S. Natarajan, J.

1. Defendants 1 to 9, 11 to 15, 17 to 25, 27 to 35 and 38 to 40, in the trial Court, respondents 41 to 43(legal representatives of the deceased 10th respondent) and respondents 44 and 45(legal representatives of the 16th respondent) in the lower appellate Court are the appellants. The plaintiff (first respondent herein) filed this suit, O.S. No. 978 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Dindigul, for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the plaint A Schedule properties, failing which, for partition of his one-eighth share in the total extent of properties comprised in plaint Schedules A and B and for equitable allotment of the A Schedule portion to him. The District Munsiff declined to grant the first of the prayers and held that the plaintiff was entitled only to a decree for partition, but even there, he was not entitled to equities in his favour in the matter of the allotment of the A Schedule portion to him. Not satisfied with the decree passed in his favour the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 134 of 1973 to the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul to reiterate his claim for declaration and injunction in respect of the A Schedule property. The appellants herein preferred a memorandum of cross-objections to canvass the correctness of the decree for partition granted by the trial Court to the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate judge dismissed the cross-objections and allowed the plaintiff's appeal and granted him the reliefs of declaration and injunction with reference to the A Schedule property. It is as against the reversing judgment of the Subordinate Judge the appellants have preferred the second appeal.

2. The brief facts which require to be noticed are as follows : The A and B Schedule properties are situate on the west of the catchment area of Kasigoundankulam in Kalvarpatti village and originally belonged in common to the ancestors of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The lands were originally being enjoyed as pasture lands. The parties were entitled to graze eighty heads of cattle and the respective sharers were grazing cattle in proportion to their shares. The plaintiff is entitled to an one-eighth share, i.e., to graze ten heads of cattle; defendants 16 to 19 are jointly entitled to graze 71/2 heads of cattle; defendants 14, 26 and 27 are together entitled to graze 21/4 heads of cattle; defendants 30 to 35 are each entitled to graze one head of cattle; the remaining shares belonged to the other branches who were also making use of the pasture lands in accordance with their shares. Subsequently, the sharers found that the lands can, with advantage, be brought under cultivation and therefore, decided to effect a partition between the various sharers so that they could conveniently raise crops on the portions allotted to them. Accordingly, a partition was effected and the plaintiff who is the major sharer was allotted the A Schedule properties towards his one-eighth share in the lands. An extent of about 2 acres in Survey Nos. 56211 and 56212 was also included in the portion allotted to the plaintiff on account of the fact that the land comprised in these two sub-divisions would always be water-logged and hence unfit for cultivation. The defendants were allotted various portions in the land set out in the B Schedule. For effective and convenient enjoyment of the A Schedule property, the plaintiff at first put up a thorny fence to enclose the property. But after some years, the plaintiff found it difficult to keep the thorny fence in good repair and hence he replaced the thorny fence with a live fence. The plaintiff dug a new well in the same place where the old well which had become silted up, was situate. The plaintiff had been raising crops in the A Schedule land and enjoying the same exclusively all these years. Likewise, defendants 2, 3, 24 and 25 had also enclosed the portions of land allotted to them by means of fences and were enjoying their properties separate