These two second appeals have been filed by the second defendant animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 26.09.1995 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No.160 of 1994 and A.S.No.161 of 1994 in modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1992 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur in O.S.No.99 of 1987. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the plaintiffs case as stood exposited from the plaint and other records could be epitomised thus:

(i) One Pallikoodathan had three sons, viz., Chidambaram, Sengan (D1) and Natesan. Sengan (D1) had four children, viz., three sons and one daughter viz., deceased Rajakannu, Duraisamy the plaintiff herein, Durairaj (D2) and Mookayee (D8). D9 to D14 are the children of D2 and Rajathi; Deceased Rajakannu and his wife Papathi (D3) gave birth to D4 to D7; the relationship among the parties is an admitted one.

(ii) During the pendency of the suit D1 Sengan died. Whereupon his daughter D8 Mookayee was also added and his other legal representatives were already on record. The suit properties comprised of 79 items described in the schedule to the plaint constituted the joint family property of D1 Sengan and his three sons, viz., Duraisamy, the plaintiff, D2 Durairaj and deceased Rajakannu and they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties jointly. As such, the four co-parceners were entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit properties.

(iii) D1 and D2 colluded together and created some void documents in respect of the suit properties so as to deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate right over those properties;

(iv) The plaintiffs demand for amicable partition ended in a fiasco. The claim of defendants 9 to 14 as though they are beneficiaries under the alleged Will executed by the deceased D1 during the pendency of the suit is nothing but a false one and the said Will is a forged document.

(v) Accordingly, he filed the suit for partition, for dividing the suit properties.

3. Denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, D1 filed the written statement, the nitty gritty, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

(i) The suit properties are not joint family properties. The Item Nos.14 and 15 of the suit properties alone are the ancestral properties; as they were purchased by Pallikoodathan, the father of D1. As such, D1s father Pallikoodathan purchased an extent of 7 acres and 34 cents from out of his own earnings and those lands were always in a water-logged condition.

(ii) The said Pallikoodathan died leaving behind his three sons, viz.,Chidambaram, Sengan (D1) and Natesan. As such, Sengan (D1) was entitled to an extent of 2 acres 45 cents only in the said land, which belonged to Pallikoodathan. No crops could be cultivated in that land and it was not an income yielding property.

(iii) The suit items 15, 27, 29, 30, 32, 44, 67 and 69 were purchased by D2 for and on behalf of his children from the minor children of the deceased Chidambaram represented by D1, who is the guardian for the Chidambarams minor children.

(iv) The rest of the suit properties belonged to D1 as he purchased it from out of his own income and they are not the joint family properties. Without any rhyme or reason, the plaintiff in the plaint simply described all the suit properties as joint family properties.

(v) D1 sold to D2, the suit items, 1 to 7, 9 to 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 to 25, 31, 33 to 41, 52, 54 to 60, 63 and other items under three sale deeds so as to meet his medical expenses and for his own future maintenance.

(vi) Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. D2 filed the written statement reiterating the contentions as put forth by D1 virtually. Over and above that he would also contend as under:

(i) D2 also discharged D1s debts due payable by D1