Signature put in the document must be satisfactorily explained.

Plaintiffs in O.S.No.37 of 1981 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam are the appellant herein. They filed the said suit for passing a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of their 3/5th share in Schedule A, B, C and D properties. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.9.1988, dismissed the suit; hence the present appeal by the plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint are briefly stated hereunder: The plaintiffs are the daughters and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of one deceased Ponnia Mudaliar and his wife Unnamalai Ammal. Third defendant is the son of the first defendant. Unnamalai Ammal, mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 died intestate on 20.5.1978 leaving behind her surviving husband Ponnia Mudaliar, plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 as her legal heirs. Ponnia Mudaliar died intestate on 23.4.1979 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs.

3. Even during the life time of Ponnia Mudaliar, the joint family immovable properties and other properties acquired in the name of Ponnia Mudaliar and his wife Unnamalai Ammal were divided between him and his wife and defendants 1 and 2 under a registered partition deed dated 23.4.1965. Under the said partition deed, the properties described therein is “A” Schedule were allotted to the share of Ponnia Mudaliar and properties described therein as “B” Schedule were allotted to the share of Unnamalai Ammal and “C” and “D” schedules therein were allotted to the shares of defendants 1 and 2. Schedule “E” properties therein were kept in common between the defendants 1 and 2 who were directed to maintain the first wife of Appavu Mudaliar, first defendant out of the income from some properties till her life time and take equally the rest of the income and the properties described as items 1 to 36 absolutely, at the lifetime of the maintenance holder. The other properties described in “E” schedule to the partition were kept in common between defendants 1 and 2.

4. The properties described in “A” schedule are the properties belonging to Ponnia Mudaliar at the time of his death 23.4.1979. It includes the properties obtained by him in the partition and subsequent acquisitions made by him by purchases, Court decrees etc. The properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint are the undisposed of immovable properties allotted to Unnamalai Ammal under the partition deed dated 23.4.1965. Both of them after partition, lived with their sons in the house described in “E” schedule. They had number of valuable movables acquired by them and most of them are described in detail in Schedule “D”. The deceased Ponnia Mudaliar started a rice mill business in or about 1977 with licence in his name and with his own separate funds.

5. On the death of Unnamalai Ammal in 1978 and later Ponnia Mudaliar in 1979, all the properties which they own had divided possession of and described in plaint Schedules A, B, C and D devolved on plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 equally as per Hindu Succession Act. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are each entitled to an undivided 1/5th share in these properties. Plaintiffs together are entitled to 3/5th share in the properties of their parents.

6. After the death of their parents, the defendants 1 and 2 sold away the land described in “C” schedule to the fourth defendant. The said sale is not binding on the plaintiffs. The 5th defendant is the tenant of the house item 31 in “A” schedule. Since 4th defendant is an alienee, he is also made a party to the suit. Since 6th and 7th defendants are alienees, they are also made parties to the suit. In view of the stand of the first defendant that deceased Unnamalai Ammal had executed a Will in favour of 8th defendant Rajakumari in respect of “B” schedule items 7 to 10, the 8th defendant is now made a party to the suit. Inspite of several attempts for ef