Alienation by father can be done of 1/8th of the total property only.

K. SAMPATH, J.

1. The above appeals arise out of a common judgment in four suits tried jointly by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

2. A.S.567/92 arises out of O.S.No.25/86. That is a suit for partition and separate possession or in the alternative, for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant therein from in any manner encumbering, alienating or dealing with the suit properties during his life time and for future profits.

3. A.S.No.373/2002, which arises out of O.S.No.359/85 on the file of the Sub Court, Pondicherry,/ O.S.No.352/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, is for a declaration that the plaintiff therein is the absolute owner and possessor of the estate of his father Krishnasamy Gounder and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment.

4. Transfer A.S.No.217/2002 arises out of O.S.No.216/87 on the file of the Sub Court, Pondicherry/O.S.No.353/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore and Transfer A.S.No.218/2002 arises out of O.S.No.5 24/85 on the file of the Sub Court, Pondicherry,/ O.S.No.351/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore.

5. The main suit is O.S.No.25/86. The plaintiff is one Krishnamoorthy Gounder, son of the first defendant Sitarama Gounder. The fifth defendant, who died pending suit, was the mother of the plaintiff and wife of the first defendant. The third defendant Shantha Ammal claimed to be the second wife of the first defendant Sitarama Gounder and defendants 2 and 4, viz. Radhakrishnan and minor Krishnaveni are the children of defendants 1 and 3.

6. Out of the four suits, O.S.No.25/86 which is the most comprehensive suit, was filed before the Sub Court, Cuddalore. The other suits were filed before the Sub Court, Pondicherry. Pursuant to an order by this Court, they were all transferred to the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Cuddalore, to be tried along with O.S.No.256/86. They were all renumbered as already noted.

7. O.S.No.351/88 was filed by the fourth defendant minor Krishnaveni represented by her mother, the second defendant Shantha Ammal, for a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property, for a mandatory injunction to the defendant Krishnamoorthy Gounder to remove the firewood from the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining Krishnamoorthy Gounder from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the property.

8. O.S.No.352/88 was filed by Krishnamoorthy Gounder for declaring him to be the absolute owner of the schedule item of the property, for a direction to remove the firewood from the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining him from burning firewood for the purpose of preparing charcoal.

9. O.S.No.353/88 was filed by Shantha Ammal and Radhakrishnan for a declaration that they are absolute owners and possessors of the properties described in the schedule to the plaint and from in any manner interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property.

10. It is not necessary to go into elaborate details regarding the cases of the respective parties. The main questions calling for consideration are whether the properties subject matter of the suit O.S. No.25/86 are the joint family properties of the plaintiff Krishnamoorthy and the first defendant Sitarama Gounder and whether the plaintiff can have partition and separate possession of the properties or in the alternative whether the plaintiff is entitled to have a permanent injunction restraining Sitarama Gounder from in any manner encumbering, alienating or dealing with the suit properties during his life time.

11. It is conceded that the parties are not governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, but by the customary Hindu Law obtaining in Pondicherry.

12. Before dealing with the main question, let us now refer to certain facts, over which there can be no controversy.

13. Parties will be referred to as per their ranks in O.S.No.25/86 or by their names dependi