M. Chockalingam, J.

This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.616 of 1987 whereby a suit filed for partition by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs sought the said relief with the following allegations:

(a) The marriage between T.E. Sivanesan Chettiar and the first plaintiff took place in the year 1948. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 were the children of the first plaintiff and Sivanesan Chettiar. They have got another son namely the 10th defendant, who, at the time of filing the suit, was outside India. The said Sivanesan Chettiar already married one Amirthavalli Ammal alias Babi Ammal as his first wife even prior to 1945. He had children through the said Amirthavalli Ammal who were shown as defendants 1 to 8. The first plaintiff is the daughter of a leading lawyer of Nagapattinam by name one V. Venkatachari, who was financially affluent. At the time of marriage, lot of jewels and various gifts were given to her apart from huge sums of money. After the marriage, she handed over the moneys which she received from her father, to him for the purpose of investing in his business and also for the purchase of properties. Except item 1 in A Schedule, all the properties were purchased though in the name of Sivanesan Chettiar, but out of the moneys given by the first plaintiff. She had also given a sum of Rs.40,100/- to him in the year 1976 for the purchase of property. Sivanesan Chettiar received the said sum representing that the property would be purchased in both their names; but, subsequently, the first plaintiff came to know that the same was purchased only in his name. Thus, she was able to see the attitude of Sivanesan Chettiar thoroughly changed.

.(b) Though she was residing in the house shown as item No.1 of A Schedule, Sivanesan Chettiar executed a Will in Document No.39/77 in respect of item No.1 of A Schedule in order to satisfy his first wife. Having executed the Will, without her knowledge, he has subsequently revoked the same also. In both the documents, the first plaintiff is referred to as wife of Sivanesan Chettiar. The 9th defendant had filed a suit for ejectment in O.S.No.116/86 alleging that item No.1 of A Schedule was sold to him by a registered sale deed on 22. 1983. Sivanesan Chettiar died interstate in the year 1985, and by operation of law, the plaintiffs are entitled to 21/85th share in the schedule mentioned properties. They were enjoying the same, and hence, the suit was to be decreed.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia stating that Sivanesan Chettiar never married the first plaintiff in 1948 as the second wife; that it was a deliberate falsehood; that even assuming that such a marriage has gone through, it was a void one, and hence, it would not entitle her to the status of a wife in law conferring any rights as claimed by her; that even as per the plaintiffs case, Sivanesan Chettiar already married one Amirthavalli Ammal even before 1945, and the defendants 1 to 8 are the children born out of the lawful wedlock; that under the circumstances, the said Amirthavalli Ammal and the children who are the defendants herein, were the legal heirs of Sivanesan Chettiar to the exclusion of all others; that it was a tissue of falsehood to state that there was a marriage between Sivanesan Chettiar and the first plaintiff and at the time of the marriage, lot of jewels, gifts and sums of money were given to her, and she gave all those amounts to him for improving the business of Sivanesan Chettiar and also for the purchase of properties in her name; that it is true that Door No.7 (New Door No.31), Sivaraman Street, Triplicane, Madras, is an ancestral property, and hence, the plaintiffs have no right and could not lay any claim over the same; that the averments that Sivanesan Chettiar was living with the first plaintiff and he executed a Will in 1977 bequeathing the property in her favour and subsequently the same was also revoked were all