The first defendant in O.S.No.285 of 1996 is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff filed O.S.No.285 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Court, Karur, for partition of suit properties and to allot 1/2 share to her. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the pleadings, materials on record, evidence granted 1/4th share in items 1 to 4 in 'A' Schedule property and dismissed the suit in respect of other properties and against second defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge passed preliminary decree to that effect by judgment dated 15.11.1999. Against the said judgment, the present first appeal is filed.

2. The case of the first respondent is that the first respondent and appellant are sister and brother. 'A' Schedule property is self acquired property of their father, Muthuswamy Gounder. From and out of income of 'A' Schedule property, their father purchased 'B' Schedule property in the name of appellant. The appellant did not have any independent income to purchase 'B' Schedule property. Till the date of death of the father of the parties, their father was enjoying the property by paying kist. On 30.11.1988 he died leaving behind first respondent and appellant as his only legal heirs. From the date of death of the father of the parties, parties are enjoying the suit properties jointly. The first respondent sought partition of the suit properties. The appellant did not agree for the same. Therefore, the first respondent sent a notice, dated 23.11.1995 through her advocate. Again the first respondent sent another notice, dated 27.2.1996. The appellant avoided receiving the same. For the first notice dated 23.11.1995, the appellant sent a reply containing false allegations. Therefore, she has filed suit for partition.

3. The appellant in his written statement denied that first respondent is his sister. According to the appellant, he is the only son of Muthuswamy Gounder. The appellant and his father from and out of his income purchased 'A' Schedule property in the name of father of parties. The appellant out of his own income purchased 'B' Schedule property. In additional written statement the appellant stated that his father executed a will dated 01.04.1985, (wrongly mentioned in the written statement as 01.04.1995 instead of 01.04.1985) bequeathing all the properties to the appellant.

4. The first respondent in her reply statement denied the execution of will dated 01.04.1985. If, really it was a genuine will, the appellant ought to have mentioned and filed along with original written statement. The appellant has to prove the will. The appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands, as he denied the fact that the first respondent is his sister.

5. Based on the pleadings the learned judge framed appropriate issues. The first respondent examined herself as PW1 and examined two other witnesses and marked 9 documents as Exs. A1 to A9. The appellant examined himself as DW1 and examined two other persons and marked 15 documents Exs. B1 to B15.

6. In the cross-examination, the appellant admitted that the first respondent is her elder sister. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the appellant and the first respondent are brother and sister.

7. Based on the evidence let in by the parties, the learned Judge held that 'A' Schedule property is the joint property of appellant and his father Muthuswamy Gounder. 'B' Schedule property is the self acquired property of the appellant. With regard to the will, the learned Judge rejected the said contention of the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. In the result the learned judge granted relief to the first respondent granting 1/4th share in the 'A' Schedule property except Item No.5, which is a residential building. Against this preliminary decree, appellant has filed this present appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contented that 'A' Schedule property was purchased by t