The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 4 of the Partition Act in determining the entitlement to shares in ancestral and additional properties, as well as the right of pre-emption.

B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.

1. The appeal has arisen in the instant case against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.1419 of 1994 dated 7.7.1999. The first defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant. Item No.1 of the suit properties is a lodging house which is run under the name and style of Brindavan Lodge is an ancestral property of Bhikam Chand Sowcar. In a partition effected between Bhikam Chand Sowcar and his brothers, items 1 of the suit property was allotted to him along with some cash and certain other properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 are in management of the lodging house and from out of the surplus earnings available from the lodging house, Bhikam Chand, who is the kartha of the family purchased items 2 to 5 of the suit properties. In fact he constructed a Kalyana Mandapam under the name and style of Santhi Kalyana Mandapam bearing door No.85, Bazaar Road, Mylapore. He had also purchased certain other properties at Aduthurai and. Chidambaram. Disputes also arose between the first defendant and his son, the second defendant herein, which resulted in the first defendant instituting a suit in O.S.No.5857 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the other sharers from interfering with the day- to-day management of the lodging house. The second defendant in turn filed a suit in C.S.No.1356 of 1991 on the file of this Court for partition and separate possession of his 1/8th share in the property bearing door No.234, R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Madras-4 and for mesne profits etc.. In that suit, by an order dated 28.7.1992 made in application No.837 of 1917 this Court appointed an auditor to peruse the various accounts of the lodging business. As per the order passed in Application No. 190 of 1993, this Court appointed a receiver and when the receiver was about to take charge, the first and second defendant entered into a compromise. Accordingly, the second defendant and fourth defendant were given half share each in the share held by the father i.e., out of the father's 1/4th share 1/8th share was given to the second defendant and 1/8 share was given to the fourth defendant. Now the plaintiff, who is one of the sons of Bhikam Chand Sowcar has come forward with the instant suit for allotment of 1/4th share in the properties. 2. The second defendant filed a written statement contending that by virtue of the compromise entered into earlier suit, plaintiff and defendants 2, 3 and 4 were to get 1/4th share each in the lodging house business but the plaintiff did not agree for a compromise. Therefore in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.A.No.156 of 1994, in C.S.No.1356 of 1993 the Division Bench of this Court has recorded the compromise and declared that the compromise is binding on all the parties except the plaintiff. According to the second defendant he has been in charge of the management of the lodging house and he had been paying income periodically to the plaintiff and other sharers. According to him he is not in a position to state whether the plaintiff has any right or share over the other properties mentioned in the schedule, because the first defendant was claiming those properties as his self acquisitions. He had also pleaded that if this court comes to the conclusion that items 2 to 5 are also joint family properties and in the event of a decree in favour of the plaintiff, he is willing to exercise his pre-emptive right to purchase the property. 3. The learned single Judge of this Court has come to the conclusion that item No.1 lodging house business was admittedly an ancestral property; that the first defendant as kartha had purchased items 2 to 5 from out of the surplus income available from the ancestral nucleus. Accordingly, a preliminary decree for partition and allotment-of the plaintiff’s 1/4th share in all