1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.9/1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC) Chidambaram has come forward with A.S.No.676/2002 as against the disallowed portion of her claim made in the plaint. The first defendant therein has filed A.S.No.857/2002 against the preliminary decree for partition passed by the trial court in the above said suit. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the suit.

2. Parameswari @ Gnanasakthi, the plaintiff filed the original suit raising the following contentions:-

Suit A schedule property originally belonged to Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar. As he died on 20.10.1995 without leaving any Will, his daughter, namely the plaintiff and his son, namely the second defendant (Bala Ganesan) became entitled to the suit A schedule property as the legal heirs of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar, each one being entitled to 1/2 share. The first defendant Raja Rathinam is the brother of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar. One Sivakami is a tenant in respect of suit A schedule property and hence no relief is sought against her. There was no cordial relationship between Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar and his son Bala Ganesan. Therefore, Kalayanasabesa Deekshidhar was looked after by his brother, namely the first defendant Raja Rathinam. As Kalayanasabesa Deekshidar was the hereditary trustee of Sri Sabanayagar temple, Chidambaram, he was having kattalaidhars during his life time. As the trustee of the Sri Sabanayagar temple he earned the movables like jewels, silver vessels which are described as suit B schedule properties. After the death of Kalayanasabesa Deekshidhar, taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was residing elsewhere, the second defendant secreted all the movables of his father Kalayanasabesa Deekshidhar and the properties described in plaint B schedule are in his custody. The right Kalayanasabesa Deekshidhar to perform kattalais and receive of remuneration for the same from the kattalaidhars is a heritable right. The plaintiff and the second defendant are having equal shares in the right to perform kattalais. Such a right of the plaintiff has been declared in O.S.No.280/1994 on the file of District Munsif, Chidambaram. The said kattalai is described as plaint C schedule property. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to a common 1/2 share in all the suit properties described in A, B and C schedule to the plaint. The demand made for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs share in the suit properties by issuing a notice dated 26.05.1997 evoked a reply notice containing false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff has to approach the court for the relief of partition of her half share in the properties described as A, B and C schedule in the plaint:-

3. Raja Rathinam, the first defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement containing the following allegations.

The plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable. It is true that the first defendant is the brother of Late Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar. But, it is not correct to state that the suit A schedule property was the absolute property of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar, which devolved upon the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant as his legal heirs on the death of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar. On the other hand, suit A schedule property was the joint family property of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidar and his brothers Thiyagaraja Deekshidhar and Rajarathina Deekshithar(D1). As there arose a dispute between the brothers, a suit was filed on the file of District Munsif Court as O.S.No.332/1957 by Kalayanasabesa Deekshidhar for partition claiming 1/3 share in the suit A schedule property. A preliminary decree was passed and when the matter was pending for passing final decree in I.A.No.211/1960, a settlement was arrived at before the panchayatdars, pursuant to which it was agreed that Thiyagaraja Deekshidhar, the other brother of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar should be paid the valu