This regular appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2006 and made in O.S.No.31 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem.

2. This present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of the suit in respect of item No.2, whereas the cross objection has been filed by the first respondent/first defendant impugning the preliminary decree in respect of first item of the suit properties inclusive of the properties sold to the defendants 3 to 7.

3. For easy reference as well as for the sake of convenience, the character of the parties to the suit may hereinafter be referred to as it is in the suit.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS:-

4. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the second defendant are the daughters of the first defendant. The second defendant is the elder sister of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The plaintiffs have filed the above suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:-

a. To grant a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to divide the suit properties into four equal shares and to allot two such separate shares to the plaintiffs and in case of failure to appoint a commissioner to divide the suit properties into four equal shares and allot two such shares to the plaintiffs and to pass a final decree in their favour.

b. To grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants and their agents from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit properties till the final decree is passed.

c. To award the costs of the suit.

5. The marriages of the plaintiffs and the second defendant took place after 1989 i.e., after the passing of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act.

6. The suit properties are the ancestral joint Hindu Family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant's father, namely, Ammasi Gounder had the properties. He had two sons, namely, Perumal Gounder and the first defendant herein, who is none other than the father of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. There was a oral partition in the family in the year 1982. In pursuant to the said oral partition the suit properties were allotted to the share of the first defendant. From the date of the said oral partition, the defendants and the plaintiffs have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties.

7. After passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1989 (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act) the plaintiffs and the second defendant are having equal share along with the first defendant.

8. The first defendant had worked as health supervisor in various places in Tamil Nadu and during the course of his employment, he had developed illicit intimacy with several ladies and also addicted to drinking habit. On account of these reasons, he had tendered his voluntary retirement from his service with effect from 31.3.2003.

9. In spite of repeated demands and convening of a panchayat in the village on 5.5.2003, the first defendant did not come forward to divide the properties amicably. Hence the present suit.

10. The second defendant has not chosen to file her written statement. Despite filing of written statement by the third defendant, he remained ex parte. The defendants 1 and 4 to 7 are the contesting defendants. Case of the first defendant:-

11. He (first defendant) being the kartha of the joint family, the loans were borrowed only for the benefit of the family and also for meeting the legal necessity of the family with the full knowledge of the plaintiffs and their mother.

12. He had also furnished the list of debtors in the written statement and claims that the plaintiffs are equally liable to discharge the debts.

13. He has contended that the first item of the suit property is his ancestral property as per the registered partition deed, dated 22.4.1974 and the partition was took place between him and his elder brother, his father and mother. In so far as the item No.2 is conce