1. The defendants in O.S.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mettur are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the respondents in the second appeal. Admittedly, the suit properties were the ancestral properties in the hands of one Arumugam who died in or about 1979. The first respondent herein/first plaintiff Janaki Ammal is the widow of the said Arumugam. Respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the daughters of the said Arumugam born through Janaki Ammal. The first respondent /first defendant is also a daughter of Late Arumugam and Janaki Ammal. Respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of late Arumugam and Janaki Ammal. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming 11/28 share on the premise that the suit properties were the coparcenary properties, of which Arumugam, his sons and the eligible daughters were coparcenars.

2. The suit was resisted by the appellants herein/defendants 1 to 3 contending that the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants orally effected a partition during the year 1988-1989 in which the entire suit properties came to be allotted to the appellants 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 and that the respondents/plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the suit properties after such division. It was also contended that respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 had been given in marriage giving sufficient dowry and sreedhanas and their marriage expenses were borne by the appellants 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 and that, in view of the same they were not allotted any share in the suit properties. Citing the alleged oral partition, the appellants also contended that the first respondent/first plaintiff also orally relinquished her share and hence she was not entitled to any share in the suit properties. It was the further contention of the appellants/defendants that since the first respondent/first plaintiff was in receipt of family pension from the employer of Late Arumugam, she was left with the same and was not allotted any share in the other properties of Arumugam, namely suit properties. Based on the above said contention, the appellants/ defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

3. The learned trial Judge framed as many as five issues and one additional issue based on which the suit was tried. In the trial, four witnesses were examined as Pws 1 to 4 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10 on the side of the respondents herein/plaintiffs, whereas four witnesses were examined as Dws 1 to 4 and 27 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B27 on the side of the appellants herein/defendants.

4. At the end of trial, the learned trial Judge considered the pleadings and evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides and on appreciation of evidence, rendered a finding that the suit properties were the coparcenary properties, of which Arumugam and his sons, namely appellants 2 and 3 / defendants 2 and 3 were coparcenars prior to the amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 to the Hindu Succession Act. However, the learned trial Judge was of the view that the second respondent/second defendant Manimekalai got married after the Tamil Nadu amendment to the Hindu Succession Act and Act 1 of 1990 was brought into force and that hence she became a coparcener in the family. Based on the said observation, the learned trial Judge proceeded with the assumption that the coparcenary consisted of 4 coparceners, namely Arumugam, his two sons and the second plaintiff, who remained unmarried when Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 came into force. Thus, the learned trial Judge held that each one of the four persons, namely Arumugam, Radhakrishna (D2), Sekar (D3) and Manimekalai (P2) became entitled to 1/4th share as coparcenars and that the share of Arumugam was succeeded to by all the plaintiffs and defendants, being wife and children of Arumugam, as per the rule of successi