1. Defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.199 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam are the appellants.

2. Respondents 1 to 8 filed the suit for partition of their 1/2 share in the suit properties and the suit was partly decreed and preliminary decree was passed in respect of A schedule and B schedule items 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 and in respect of loans, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 8 were held liable to pay half the amount and in respect of 'D' and 'E' schedules, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 and 3 filed the present appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

The first plaintiff is the mother and plaintiffs 2 to 8 are her children. The first plaintiff's husband Arulanandasamy Nadar and the first defendant/first appellant herein are brothers and the second defendant is their sister. Siluvai Muthu Nadar was the father of the first defendant and the mother was Sebasthi Ammal. The second defendant, the daughter of Siluvai Muthu Nadar got properties towards her share and therefore, she is not entitled to make any claim over the suit properties. The third defendant is the wife of the first defendant and she also claimed right over A schedule property and therefore, filed O.S.No.91 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. Therefore, she was impleaded as third defendant. After the death of Siluvai Muthu Nadar, the brothers viz., the first defendant and the husband of the first plaintiff viz., Arulanandasamy Nadar jointly did business and purchased properties in their individual names. The first defendant was employed as Driver in Government Transport Corporation and therefore, he purchased the properties in the name of his brother Arulanandasamy and they also purchased properties in the name of their mother Sebasthi Ammal. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties and on 14.10.1979, a panchayat was held and a partition deed was effected between Arulanandasamy and the first defendant and the properties were agreed to be divided and it was also agreed that the parties would enter into a registered partition deed as per the agreement and thereafter, no steps were taken by the first defendant for registering the partition deed. In the year 1983, Arulanandasamy died and A schedule property was the joint property of Arulanandasamy and his brother the first defendant and B schedule first item also belonged to them jointly. B schedule items 2 to 10 were purchased out of the joint income earned by the two brothers and purchased in the names of Arulanandasamy and Anthonisamy and items 2 to 6 are in the possession of the first defendant and he sold some of the properties to the fourth defendant and items 7 to 10 are in possession of the plaintiffs. The brothers also purchased two lorries and were earning income and one lorry was purchased in the name of the third defendant and another lorry was purchased in the name of Arulanandasamy and in both the lorries, the brothers were having equal share. The first defendant availed loan from the Co-operative Societies and he also pledged 7-1/2 sovereigns of jewels belonging to Arulanandasamy and some of the loans were obtained in the name of Arulanandasamy and in the loans, both the parties are liable to pay equally and as the parties were not able to enjoy the properties amicably, notices were issues and the suit was filed for partition of A to C schedule properties claiming half share in those properties and for recovery of D schedule property from the first defendant/first appellant and to make provision for the loans mentioned in E schedule.

4. The first defendant contested the suit stating that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief prayed for. A schedule property belongs to Thiyagarajaswamy Devasthanam and out of the total extent of 59 cents, the third defendant was given patta in respect of 9 cents by the Government and defendants 1 and 3 also put up construction in that property and the house tax assessme