This Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.1444 of 2004 dated 10. 2007.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1444 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court is the Appellant before this Court. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting 1/5th share in the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, 1/5th share each to defendants 1 to 3 and 1/5th share in total to defendants 4 to 8.

3. The facts which are leading to the filing of the above Appeal are as follows:

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

5. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. Defendants 2 and 3 are their sisters. The mother of defendants 4 to 8 was also a sister of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3.

6. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1444 of 2004 for partition of 2/5th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property which is land and building admeasuring about 2451 sq.ft. bearing new Door No.129, Old Door No.51, Tana Street, Purasawalkkam, Chennai 600 007. Though the plaintiff claimed 2/5th share initially in the amended plaint filed by him, the plaintiff prayed for a judgment and decree for partition of 1/2 share in the suit schedule property.

7. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3, himself and the mother of defendants 4 to 8 are the sons and daughters of late Thiru K.Somasundaram Chettiyar. The suit schedule property belonged to the forefathers of their father and the same was acquired by him through inheritence. Their father, Thiru Somasundaram Chettiyar was living in the suit schedule property along with the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and the mother of defendants 4 to 8. The daughters lived there till their marriage. Thiru Somasundaram Chettiyar was acting as the Karta of Hindu undivided family, consisting of himself, the first defendant and the plaintiff. Thiru Somasundaram Chettiyar passed away on 38. 1965 leaving his wife Tmt.Tirupurasundari Ammal, the defendants 1 to 3, the mother of defendants 4 to 8 and the plaintiff as the legal heirs. Tmt. Tirupurasundari Ammal lived in the suit schedule property till her death and she died on 1. 1998. After her death, the plaintiff and the first defendant continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property.

8. As it became impossible, for the plaintiff to live jointly, in the suit schedule property, he requested the first defendant on several occasions to effect partition of the property by metes and bounds. But, the first defendant evaded the plaintiff and he was only interested in collecting the rent from the several portions which were let out. He was also not sharing rental income or showing the accounts for the same. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.1410 of 1999 on the file of the 17th Assistant City Civil Court for the partition of the plaint schedule property. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the other legal heirs of late Somasundaram chettiyar were not impleaded as parties in the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the other legal heirs calling upon them to come for an amicable settlement, and to partition the suit schedule property. As the defendants could not come forward to do so, the plaintiff filed the above suit for the abovesaid relief.

9. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of his father and mother, the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to 1/2 share each and hence, he claimed his 1/2 share in the suit schedule property.

10. The first defendant, in his written statement, admitted the relationship of the parties to the suit. He also admitted that the property was acquired by their father by inheritance. He pointed out that challenging the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1410 of 1999, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.98 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court and the same is pending. In view