The main legal point established in the judgment is that the construction of a property and the rights of the parties involved should be determined based on the evidence presented, and in this case, the court found that the super-structure was put up by the entire family, entitling the plaintiff to a share in the property.

The second defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit praying for partition of the suit property and allot one-seventh share to him. He has also prayed for mesne profits.

3. The first defendant Padmavathi is the wife of late V.K.Palani. The second defendant and the plaintiff are the sons and the defendants 3 to 6 are the daughters of V.K.Palani.

4. The plaintiff would contend in the plaint that his father V.K.Palani left behind him a tiled house bearing Door No.10, Nelsonmanickam Road, Chennai-94. After the demise of V.K.Palani, the plaintiff and the second defendant constituted a Hindu joint family and improved the said property. Though the joint family properties are undivided, the plaintiff and the second defendant started living separately from the year 1977. The properties are under the management of the second defendant. Alleging that there was no proper response from the second defendant for the demand for partition of the properties by metes and bounds, the plaintiff prays for division of the property and allotment oneseventh share therein.

5. The third to sixth defendants remained exparte before the Trial Court proceedings. The first defendant Padmavathi filed written statement, but she did not participate in the further trial proceedings. The written statement filed by the first defendant would go to show that she virtually supported the case of the second defendant.

6. The second defendant would contend in the written statement separately filed by him that the tiled house bearing Door No.10, Nelsonmanickam Road, Chennai-94 is the selfacquired property, absolutely belonging to the second defendant. The plaintiff had no earnings at the time when the suit property was acquired by the second defendant. The plaintiff after the demise of V.K.Palani left the second defendant to set up a separate house at Kodambakkam. V.K.Palani put up a thatched shed in the suit property which is a poromboke land. The Government removed the same in the year 1948 itself. The second defendant was employed in Ashok Leyland for about three years. With his own earnings he put up a thatched shed in the poromboke land. Thereafter, the second defendant joined the Indian Railways and having removed the hut, he put up a Mangalore tiled house out of his own earnings. In the year 1981, he built a pucca building out of his own earnings and also by borrowing loans from friends and money lenders. The plaintiff has no manner of right over the suit property. Therefore, he prays that the suit may be dismissed.

7. The Trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record returned a finding that the super-structure was put up by the second defendant from the funds mobilized by him and that the plaintiff is not entitled for a share in the suit property as pleaded by him.

8. The First Appellate Court having set aside the findings of the Trial Court held that the super-structure of the suit site which is a poromboke land was assigned in favour of V.K.Palani and the super-structure was put up out of the joint family funds. It has been observed therein that the plaintiff has also contributed for the construction of the superstructure in the suit property. Consequently, the prayer for mesne profits was rejected by the First Appellate Court.

9. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court at the time of the admission of the second appeal for determination:

1. Whether there has been a proper appreciation and application of the principles for holding that a property standing in the name of an individual, shall acquire the character of a joint family property so as to be available for partition.

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court misconstrued or omitted to construe the material evidence on record when it chose to reverse the Judgment and decree of the Court below.

.10. The learned counsel appearing for the second defendant would contend that Ex.B28, account book maintained b