This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 26.06.1997, passed by the learned V Addl. City Civil Judge, Madras in O.S.No.11886 of 1996. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

One R. Rajagopal had seven children, so to say, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. D1 is the widow of deceased Rajagopal who died in the year 1992 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their written statement. Others remained ex parte. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

3. On the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 was marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and no exhibit was marked.

4. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit for partition on the sole ground that the plaintiff being a female member cannot ask for partition of a dwelling house in the occupation of a male heir as per Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. However, the lower C