1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendants as against the judgment and decree dated 310. 2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti, in the suit in O.S.No.67 of 1996, which was filed by the plaintiffs as against the defendants for partition and for other consequential reliefs.

2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint could be recounted thus:

.(a) One Narayanan had two wives, namely, Kullammal and Pooraniammal. Through his first wife, Kullammal he had two children, viz., deceased Varadan and Sampoornam-the fifth plaintiff. Varadans wife is Andal-the fourth plaintiff. The children of Varadan and Andal are Radhakrishnan, Balakrishnan, and Neelakanni (Plaintiffs 1 to 3).

.(b) The said Narayanan through his second wife Pooraniammal gave birth to four children viz., Mayavan, Perumal, Jeyabalan and Meenakumari- D2 to D5 respectively.

.(c) Even though in the genealogy appended to the plaint, the plaintiffs set out that Narayanan had two wives, yet in the body of the plaint, they would contend as though Narayanan, during the life time of his first wife Kullammal developed illicit intimacy with Pooraniammal. The plaintiffs also contended that the children born to Narayanan through Pooraniammal are not the legitimate children.

.(d) In the partition, which emerged among Narayanan and his brothers including his father and mother, as per partition dated 110. 1943, the properties referred to in the "A" schedule of the partition deed was allotted to the share of Narayanan. Those properties were income yielding properties; consequently, Narayanan acquired other properties also. As such, all those properties are referred to as the joint family properties. Narayanans son Varadan pre-deceased Narayanan, leaving behind his three sons, viz., plaintiffs 1 to 3. Consequently, Narayanan was depending upon Mayavan, the son born through the said Pooraniammal, for his assistance.

.(e) Mayavan was collecting income from the suit property and it so happened that some properties were purchased in the name of D2 Mayavan, who had no independent source of income. At that time, Mayavan happened to be the eldest son of Narayanan. As such those properties purchased in the name of Mayavan also were treated as joint family properties.

.(f) Similarly, in the name of first defendant, namely, Pooraniammal also, Narayanan purchased some property, from out of the joint family income, and that was also treated as joint family property. As such, the suit properties all belong to joint family. Three years anterior to the filing of the suit, when the plaintiffs sought for partition, the defendants 2 and 3 refused to agree for amicable partition.

.(g) Defendants 2 and 3 had contended that the joint familys debt to the tune of Rs.2 ½ lakhs should also be apportioned among the sharers for being repaid. They also contended that the properties standing in the name of D1 and D2 are the self-acquired properties. Hence, the suit for partition.

4. Per contra, gain saying and challenging the allegations/averments in the plaint, the second defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1, the pith and marrow of it would run thus:

Narayanan, in the partition deed among his brothers and parents, during the year 1943 obtained only a small extent of land, viz., 1 acre and 96 cents of dry land, which was not sufficient to support the family needs and he did not purchase properties from out of the income derived from it. The plaintiffs, who are the heirs of deceased Varadan, left the family after Varadans demise and they have been living separately. However, Narayanan, out of his exertion earned from the said joint family property, purchased an extent of 5 acres and 5 cents of land on 211. 1960 for Rs.12,000/-. Nara