1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.311 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, are the appellants. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit for partition and the suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

2. The facts of the plaintiffs' case is as follows:-

The first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is her husband. Along with their close relatives, they were running a theatre in the name and style of "Muthumariamman Talkies" at Kilvelur on a partnership basis. Due to financial constraints, the other partners relinquished their share in favour of the first plaintiff and thereafter, ultimately, the first plaintiff and the second defendant were running the partnership firm and the first plaintiff was managing the firm on behalf of the other partner. The second defendant is the younger brother of the second plaintiff. The partnership firm had borrowed money from the third defendant and therefore, the property was brought to sale and one Mr.Elamaran, an advocate was the successful bidder in the Court auction and that was challenged by the first defendant before the High Court. The first defendant was the classmate of the second plaintiff and he volunteered to help the plaintiffs and the second defendant, and as per the agreement entered into between the first defendant, first plaintiff and the second defendant, the second defendant must relinquish his share from the partnership firm and the firm shall be run by the first plaintiff and the first defendant and they shall share the profit and loss equally and the first defendant also agreed to discharge the loan amount payable by the firm. Thereafter, the theatre was purchased from Elamaran, the Court auction purchaser, by the first defendant in his name and the Civil Revision Petition challenging the Court auction sale filed before the High Court was also withdrawn. Even after the purchase of the theatre in the name of the first defendant, it was agreed between the second plaintiff and the first defendant that the sale deed shall be retained by the first defendant and the second plaintiff shall run the theatre on behalf of the first defendant though the licence stands in the name of the first defendant. The second plaintiff was looking after the management of the theatre and now, the first defendant wanted to wriggle out from the oral understanding and wanted to claim absolute ownership to the theatre. The first defendant also filed O.S.No.234 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, against the second plaintiff for injunction restraining the second plaintiff from interfering with his possession and management of the theatre. Since the theatre stands in the name of the first defendant, and the first plaintiff is having half share in the theatre, using his influence, the first defendant obtained licence for the theatre in his name and that will not confer any right on the first defendant. The first defendant has paid only the decretal amount and other dues were not paid and therefore, the third defendant bank was impleaded as one of the parties and the second plaintiff was helping the first plaintiff in managing the affairs of the theatre. Therefore, the first plaintiff was also impleaded. The contention of the first defendant that there was no partnership between him and the first plaintiff is not correct and the sale deed in favour of the first defendant is sham and nominal document and the first defendant cannot claim any right under the sale deed and therefore, the suit was filed for partition.

3. The first defendant filed a statement stating that pursuant to the suit filed by the third defendant before the Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam, the theatre was brought to sale and one Elamaran, an Advocate, bought the theatre in Court auction and from him, the first defendant purchased the theatre on 3.8.1988. Therefore, the first defendant is the absolute owner of the property. The first defendan