1. The appellants who are the defendants in the suit filed this second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 29.07.1999 made in A.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of Additional District Court, Nagapattinam confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996 made in O.S.No.98 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff in the suit is referred to as respondent herein and defendants in the suit are referred to as appellants herein.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit (a) for possession in respect of 5 items of "A" Schedule properties (b) for the amount of Rs.4,000/- as past profit (c) for alternative relief of preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/3rd share in 5 items in "A" schedule and 6 items in "B" Schedule properties (d) To direct the defendants 1 and 2 or all the defendants to render accounts for the income of the suit properties for the past three years prior to the suit (e) for final decree (f) for cost (g) other reliefs.

4. The respondent and the appellants 1 and 2 are brothers. The third appellant is the wife of second appellant and the fourth appellant is son of first appellant. The father of the respondent Rengasamy Padayachi was employed as Gangman and died in the year 1976. While he was alive, he was depending only on his meagre income and lived various places in thatched houses. The respondent's father or the family members have not owned any property much less income yielding property. The family do not possess any ancestral or joint family property. The respondent joined in the Air Force at the age of 18 ½ years in the year 1955 and began to earn. Since he was in the Military service, he was eligible to enjoy Government Poromboke land and he occupied item 1 of the suit "A" Schedule property which was used as 'Kalam' by some persons in the year 1958-1959. At that time, the first appellant was minor and the 2nd appellant was an young boy aged about 4 or 5 years. Only out of the respondent's money, the said first item was made fit for cultivation. Initially, "B" memos were issued to the respondent and later assigned to the respondent on the basis of his application and on account of his Military service. The above said first item given by the State Government to the appellant as a grant and the respondent out of his own income erected a borewell and brought electricity connection. The respondent out of his own income purchased item Nos.2 and 3 including 3A of 'A' Schedule properties for his benefit. Further, the respondent has also purchased house site in his mother's name and subsequently got it transferred in his name and put up the building in item 4 of the 'A' Schedule with his own fund and also by raising loan from the building society. Since the respondent was in service elsewhere he allowed his father, mother and others to live in the newly constructed house in item 4 of the "A" Schedule and kept all the documents in an almirah in that house. Thus the entire "A" schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the respondent. Neither the appellants 1 and 2 nor the family contributed any amount for the purchase of properties. The respondent used to come to the village during cultivation time and cultivating "A" schedule properties out of his own earnings. The appellants 1 and 2 used to help the respondent only in cultivation of the lands. The respondent settled the village permanently after his retirement in June 1992. Since the respondent was living in the newly constructed house, the appellants were allowed to live in item No.5 of "B" Schedule house. The appellants began to disturb the respondent's possession and hence the respondent filed a suit in OS.No.1034 of 1993 in respect of items 1 to 3 of the suit "A" Schedule properties. The appellants 1 and 2 for the first time in November 1993, claimed as both "A" & "B" Schedule properties are the joint family properties. The interim injunction gr