This appeal is focussed against the judgment and decree dated 5. 2002 passed in O.S.No.140 of 1996 by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. For convenience sake the parties are referred to under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. The portrayal and parodying of the case of the plaintiff could be set out quintessentially and precisely thus:

(a) One Purankhan died issueless and intestate a year and a half, before the institution of the suit, whereas his wife pre-deceased him. Purankhans legal heirs are his brothers, viz., the plaintiff and D3 herein. The property described in the "A" schedule of the plaint was the absolute property of Purankhan. He had bank accounts as set out in the "B" schedule of the plaint. He had cash of Rs.5 lakhs. He lent money to various persons as found detailed in the "C" schedule of the plaint.

.(b) The plaintiff and D3 are entitled to half share each in the suit properties after paying the dues towards Purankhans funeral expenses, debts and legacies, if any.

.(c) D1 is the husband of D2, who is the daughter of late Nabikhan, who was one of the brothers of Purankhan. D1 and D2 had no right or title ov