G. RAJASURIA, J.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1995 passed in O.S. No. 323 of 1991 by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, which is a suit for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. The portrayal and parodying of the case of the plaintiffs, succinctly and precisely, niggard and bereft of details, as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus:

a) The couple Nagammal and Sundaram Pillai had three sons and four daughters, viz., 1. S. Sarangapani, 2. S. Varadharaj, 3. S. Chandrasekar, 4. K. Dhanabakkiyam, 5. K. Jayalakshmi, 6. P. Indirani, 7. S. Sarojini.

b) The first son Sarangapani died leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff and his children viz., plaintiffs 2 to 9.

c) The second son, Varadharaj, died leaving behind his wife Dhanalakshmi, the first defendant and his children, viz., defendants 2 to 5.

d) The third son of Naganvnal and Sundaram Pillai is the sixth defendant.

e) The defendants 7 to 10 are the daughters of the deceased Nagammal.

f) In the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint ¼th share was purchased by th