This is an appeal by defendants 4 and 6 against a preliminary decree for partition made in favour of the first respondent by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13 are Mahomedans and alleged to be co-sharers. The other defendants are alienees from some of the defendants of portions of the properties in suit. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to 19/240th share in the properties set out in the schedules to the plaint.

Though there was some contest in the trial Court, there was no dispute before us about the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13. One Pakkiri Taragan had four sons, Alliyar, Sheik Uduman, Syed Ahmed and Ghosu Muhammad and a daughter Kathija. Alliyar married one Nagoor Meeral and by her he had a son Syed Ahamad and a daughter Mukkuthi. The plaintiff is the husband of Mukkuthi. Nagoor Meeral, before she married Alliyar, was the widow of one Abu Bucker, by whom she had a son named S.M. Muhammad. Sheik Uduman, the second son of Pakkiri, was married to the seventh defendant. The first defendant is his son and the eighth and ninth defendants are his daughters. Syed Ahamad, the third son of Pakkiri, was married to the tenth defendant. The second and third defendants are his sons and the eleventh and twelfth defendants his daughters. The third defendant died pendente lite and defendants 36 to 39 were added as his legal representatives. Ghosu Muhammad, the fourth son, had three sons, defendants 4, 5 and 6 and a daughter, the 13th defendant.

Pakkiri died in 1903. There is no reliable evidence as to the properties left by Pakkiri. Alliyar died on 25th January, 1905. There is documentary evidence that by the date of his death, immoveable properties worth about Rs. 7,000 had been purchased in his name and in the names of his three brothers (vide Exs. P-1 to P-4, D. 8-g, D. 9-n and D. 11-y). The extent of land covered by these deeds was about four acres and a half. Alliyar’s son Syed Ahamad and his daughter Mukkuthi continued to live with their uncles and in 1913 Mukkuthi was married to the plaintiff. In 1914, Alliyar’s widow Nagoor Meeral died, and next year, i.e., in 1915, Alliyar’s son Syed Ahamad died. In 1918, Mukkuthi, the plaintiff’s wife, died issueless.

During the period between 1905 that is the date of Alliyar’s death, and 1915, the year of Syed Ahamad’s (Alliyar’s son’s) death, certain immoveable properties were purchased in the name of the three brothers of Alliyar and Syed Ahamad, the son of Alliyar. Ex. P-6 series relate to such purchases and they comprise a total extent of five acres 31 cents wet and 5 cents dry.

Though the members of the family resided at Melapalayam in the Tinnevelly district, there is evidence to show that even during the lifetime of Alliyar there was a business in cloth and carpets with branches at Rangoon and at Cuddalore (see Ex. P-12). The name of the firm was S.P.A. Sheik Uduman and Brothers. Though there is no documentary evidence of the fact, it is alleged that besides cloth and carpet business, there was also a flourishing business in oil carried on in Rangoon. Syed Ahamad, the third son of Pakkiri, died in 1918, Ghosu Muhammad, the fourth son, in 1934 and Sheik Uduman, the second son, in 1941. After the death of Alliyar’s son Syed Ahamad, several purchases of immoveable properties were made between 1916 and 1930. The sale deeds were taken only in the names of the surviving sons of Pakkiri and the sons of the deceased brothers other than Alliyar. Mukkuthi, the daughter of Alliyar, was not a party to any of the transactions in her lifetime, though it must be also mentioned that no other female member of the family is a party to any of the transactions. The plaintiff was the heir of his wife Mukkuthi but his name admittedly does not find a place in any of the documents. It is common ground that the plaintiff was employed in the business carried on in Rangoon till at least 1933. He was being paid a salary and he hel