1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 1986, on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, is the appellant herein. She filed the suit for the relief of partition of her 1/8 share and also for mesne profit in the plaint 'A' to 'E' schedule properties, or, in the alternate, half share in 'F' schedule property and 1/8 share in 'C' to 'E' schedule properties and for mesne profit.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, as seen from the plaint is as follows:-

a) One A.K.Pakkeer Mohammed had four sons, viz.,

1) Khader-e-Alam,

2) Mohammed Yakuub/first defendant,

3) Kamarudeen and

4)Abdul Azeez.

The plaintiff was the daughter of Khader-e-Alam, the defendants 2 to 6 were the legal heirs of Kamarudeen and the defendants 7 and 8 were the daughters of Abdul Azeez. The grandfather of the plaintiff, viz., A.K.Pakkeer Mohammed was doing business in Grocery and after his death, his business was taken over by his aforesaid four sons and they were also running a Rice Mill business. The said Khader-e-Alam, viz., the plaintiff's father and another son by name Kamarudeen died in the year 1967 and Abdul Azeez died in the year 1980.

b) The properties belonged to the sons of A.K.Pakkeer Mohammed, were not partitioned and were managed by the first defendant, and from and out of the income earned from the business, various other properties were purchased, and all the properties belonged to the four brothers and therefore, the plaintiff, as per the Muslim Law, claimed 1/8 share in the entire properties, and her mother, the ninth defendant, are entitled to 1/32 share. c) The first defendant, after the death of his three brothers, brought about a division of the properties, evidenced by Ex.52, the partition deed, dated 03.12.1981, which was confined only to the immovable properties. In the said partition, 'C' schedule property mentioned therein was allotted to the first defendant and the plaintiff in common and 'C' schedule property mentioned in the said partition deed has been mentioned as 'F' schedule property in the plaint. The said partition deed was not legally valid and even assuming that the partition deed was valid, the plaintiff was entitled to claim undivided half share in 'F' schedule property and therefore, the alternate prayer was made.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement, wherein, he has contended as follows:-a) After the death of his father-A.K.Pakkeer Mohammed, in the year 1945, his four sons, viz., 1) the plaintiff's father/Khader-e-Alam, 2) Mohammed Yakuub/first defendant, 3)Kamarudeen and 4) Abdul Azeez were carrying on business under the name and style "M/s.A.K.Pakkeer Mohammed Rowthar Sons" and certain properties were also acquired from and out of the business income. However, he contended that after the death of the plaintiff's father-Khader-e-Alam and Kamarudeen, in the year 1967, the plaintiff can claim share only in respect of the properties, which were available on the date of death of her father and she cannot claim any share over other properties, which were acquired later. b) It was further contended by the first defendant that after the death of his two brothers, viz., Khader-e-Alam and Kamarudeen, the legal heirs of those deceased brothers were enjoying the properties only as tenants in common and therefore, they cannot claim any share in the properties acquired after 1967. The properties acquired prior to the year 1967 was appended to the written statement as Item Nos.1 to 9 and Item Nos. 10 to 16 were the properties, which were acquired after the death of Khader-e-Alam and Kamarudeen and therefore, in respect of Item Nos.10 to 16, the plaintiff cannot claim any share and the plaintiff is entitled to claim 1/8 share in respect of the properties mentioned as Item Nos.1 to 9 in the list appended to the written statement. c) It was further contended by the first defendant that there was a partition of properties in the family on 03.12.1981, in which, the plaintiff and the first defendant were given ce