M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to a preliminary decree made in C.S.No.1211 of 1992, a suit for partition.

.2. The defendants are the appellants. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit, seeking division of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, claiming 1/5th share each with the allegations that they are the sons of Kabali Naidu and Dhanalakshmi, the first defendant in the suit; that while the defendants 2 to 4 are their sisters and defendants 5 and 6 are their brothers; that the suit property situate at No.515, Anna Salai, Vannia Teynampet, Madras-600 018, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, originally belonged to Ranganayakiammal, the paternal grand mother of the plaintiffs and also defendants 2 to 6; that she died intestate on 24.08.1964 and thus, the properties devolved upon her husband Munuswamy Naidu and her only son Kabali Naidu; that Munuswamy Naidu and his son Kabali Naidu enjoyed the said property without any division as their ancestral property by throwing in into the hotchpotch of Hindu Undivided joint family; that it was never treated by them as their separate property, though they inherited the same through a female ancestor; that the said Munuswamy Naidu died intestate on 22. 1978; that his undivided half share in the property devolved upon his only son Kabali Naidu and thus, he became the full owner of the suit property; that during the lifetime of Munuswamy Naidu, the plaintiffs and their father Kabali Naidu have created a registered mortgage in respect of the suit property in favour of George Town Cooperative Bank Limited, Madras and availed loan to improve the suit property; that it was utilised for the construction of the property; that the said Kabali Naidu died intestate on 3. 1990 and the property devolved upon the plaintiffs, their mother, the first defendant and the defendants 5 and 6; that the plaintiffs, the first defendants and defendants 5 and 6 are equally entitled to have share, namely 1/5th share each in the suit property; that the suit property was in the joint possession and enjoyment of the co-sharers; that there are more than 20 tenants, from whom the income to an extent of Rs.60,000/- is derived; that the first defendant, though collected the same in the past, has not given any share to the plaintiffs and that at the instigation of the other defendants, the first defendant has attempted to grab the property without giving due share to the plaintiffs and under these circumstances, there arose a necessity to file the suit.

.3. The suit was resisted to by the defendants, inter-alia, stating that it is true, the properties originally belonged to Ranganayakiammal; that on her death, it came to the hands of her husband and also her family members; that it is not correct to state that the property was thrown into the hotchpotch of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family; that on the death of Munuswamy Naidu, it devolved on Kabali Naidu and on his death, it was to be divided among his wife and children and thus, all the defendants are equally entitled to along with the plaintiffs; that the entire income was not to an extent what was mentioned in the plaint and it was only a meager amount and apart from that, the income was also utilised for construction of building at first and for maintenance thereafter and therefore, the suit was to be dismissed.

4. The learned Single Judge framed seven issues and both sides evidence were adduced and documents were also marked. After hearing the arguments advanced and considering the materials available, the learned Single Judge took the view that the plaintiffs, the first defendant and the defendants 5 and 6 were entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit property and so far as mesne profit was concerned, the matter has got to be decided at the time of passing of final decree by initiating the proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have brought forth this appeal.

5. Advancing arguments on b