Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore in O.S.No.25 of 2005 and the counter claim, this appeal is focussed.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the facts as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed and parodied thus:

The suit properties described in the A and B schedules appended to the plaint originally belonged to the plaintiffs paternal grand mother, Thirumalai Ammal, who derived title to the suit properties through her paternal ancestors. The patta stood in the name of Thirumalai Ammal in respect of the A scheduled property, which is an agricultural land measuring an extent of 11.66 acres. The B scheduled property, which is a house property also came to be vested with Thirumalai Ammal from her paternal ancestors. After the death of Thirumalai Ammal, her only son Thiruvenkadam Pillai, derived title to the suit properties and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thiruvenkadam Pillai had one son and one daughter, namely the deceased first plaintiff Booshanambal, and D1, Govindaraju Pillai. The said Thiruvenkadam Pillai died intestate on 04.02.1963 leaving behind the first plaintiff, Booshanambal and D1, Govindaraju Pillai as his only legal heirs and they derived absolute title to the suit properties and each of them were entitled to half share in those properties. D1, along with his sons D2 to D4, are looking after the A scheduled property and they are sharing the income from it with the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff Booshanambal, along with her legal heirs P2 to P10 have been in possession and enjoyment of the B scheduled property for over 40 years. The said Booshanambal, the first plaintiff died on 30.11.2004 leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 to 10 as her legal heirs to inherit her properties. The sons of the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 and 4 have been jointly running a Milk Dairy in the A scheduled property. Subsequently, bad blood started running in the relationship of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Hence the suit for partition of A and B scheduled properties into equal shares and for allotting one share to the plaintiffs.

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

Thirumalai Ammals husband was Kandasamy Pillai, whose maternal uncle was Subbiah Pillai, who was living in unmarried state under the care and custody of Kandasamy Pillai. While so, Kandasamy Pillai purchased an extent of 25.18 acres including the A scheduled property in the name of Subbiah Pillai during the year 1917. Out of the total extent of 25.18 acres, an extent of 2.06 acres was acquired by the Railway Department and the remaining extent of 23.12 acres was in possession of Kandasamy Pillai, who enjoyed it as absolute owner and died in the year 1933 leaving behind his widow, the said Thirumalai Ammal @ Seethammal and their only son Thiruvenkadam Pillai. After the death of Kandasamy Pillai, the said property devolved upon Thiruvenkadam Pillai and his only son Govindaraju Pillai. It so happened that after the death of Kandasamy Pillai, Thiruvenkadam Pillai and his son Govindaraju Pillai along with Thirumalai Ammal, the widow of Kandasamy Pillai, mortgaged the entire extent of 23.12 acres of land during the year 1933. Even though Subbiah Pillai was alive at that time, he never laid any claim over the said property.

4. On 211. 1935, the same set of people sold an extent of 11.46 acres to third parties and Subbiah Pillai was a consenting party to the said sale as he signed as a witness. The said Thiruvenkadam Pillai and his son Govindaraju Pillai, enjoyed the suit property jointly in their capacity as equal owners till Thiruvenkadam Pillai died in the year 1963. As such, the allegations to the contrary in the plaint are false. Thiruvenkadam Pillai never treated the A