P. Shanmugam, J.

1. As two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment, for the sake of convenience 'the appellant' in this judgment refers to the appellant in A.S.No.551 of 1991 and 'the respondents' refer to the respondents in A.S.No.551 of 1991.

2. The first defendant is the appellant. Respondents 1 to 6 filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, for partition and division of 'A' and 'B' Schedule of properties by metes and bounds. The suit was decreed against which the present appeal.

3. The brief facts are as follows:-

The appellant and Veerasami Vellalar are brothers. Veerasami Vellalar died intestate on 29.3.1989 leaving behind him plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the third defendant besides his wife, the sixth plaintiff. The brothers constituted a joint Hindu Family owning agricultural lands. The brothers entered into a registered partition deed of the joint family properties dated 17.3.1974. The case of the plaintiffs was that while some of the items of the properties were divided by metes and bounds, there were properties which were kept undivided without effecting division by metes and bounds, including the joint family business, namely, rice mill business at Survey No.88-A/1.A of 33 Alathur Village. It is alleged that there was an arrangement even after the partition. by which, the appellant/first defendant was permitted to enjoy the rice mill business exclusively and the accounts will be looked after only in the final partition which would be effected in respect of the undivided properties left out in the partition. On 11.4.1989, the plaintiffs have demanded division of undivided properties left out in the division. As the first defendant was evading and was not willing to divide those properties, the above suit came to be filed. Thus, it could be seen that the plaintiffs seek mainly for division of rice mill and some of the constructions put up after the partition and the properties set out in 'A' Schedule, on the main ground that final division did not take place between the two brothers.

4. The appellant/first defendant, in his written statement, stated that partition has taken place finally as per registered partition deed dated 17.3.1974. The further partition among the plaintiffs' branch in the year 1980 would reveal that there was final partition between the brothers in the year 1974. The joint family had no other vocation except agricultural, whereas the appellant was employed in a coffee house at Singapore from 1937 to 1940 and later he got himself associated with his maternal uncle Rengasamy Vellalar, who was owning a rice mill and the appellant was working as Manager of the said rice mill. With that experience and skill acquired in running a rice mill, he himself took up the rice mill business on lease and he was conducting the same for four years. With the consent of the plaintiffs' father, the appellant took possession of the entire extent of 34 cents in Survey No.88-A/1.A on condition that the plaintiff’s father should be compensated in lieu of this share in the site at the ti me of partition to be made between them. Thereafter, he took exclusive possession of the site and constructed a rice mill building and installed the machineries and accessories investing his own earnings from the rice mill business. Subsequently, he put up a drying yard, oven etc., and other structures. The appellant commenced the rice mill business in the year 1952 after obtaining the necessary licence in his name and since then, he had been conducting the same exclusively for his own benefit without reference to the joint family whatsoever. According to the appellant, the rice mill business is his self-acquired business and the structures in S.No.88-A/1.A and the rice mill structures are his separate properties. A tiled constructed house measuring 15' x 1 5' for the residence of the appellant was put up out of the joint family funds in a portion of the eastern half of the S.No.