M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. The above Appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 124 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Court, Arni

2. The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The 1st appellant had died during the pendency of the appeal and her legal representative were brought on record as the appellants 3 to 5. Respondents 1 to 8 are the plaintiffs, 9th respondent was the 4th defendant in the suit and the respondents 10 to 12 are the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd respondent.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 124 of 1990 for partition and separate possession.

4. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:--

"(i) The 1st defendant is the wife of one Narayanasamy Mudaliyar. The said Narayanasamy Mudaliyar and the 1st defendant had one son and three daughters. Their son Elumalai and their daughter Ranganayaki Ammal had died. The 1st plaintiff is the wife of Elumalai. The 2nd plaintiff and plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the husband and children of the deceased Ranganayaki Ammal. Elumalai and the 1st plaintiff did not have issue.

(ii) According to the plaintiffs, Narayanasamy Mudaliyar sold the ancestral properties and purchased the suit property in the name of the 1st defendant. Narayanasamy Mudaliyar and his son Elumalai are entitled to half share in the ancestral properties. The said Narayanasamy Mudaliyar had died 20 years prior to the filing of the suit. His share in the properties were inherited by Elumalai, defendants 1 and 2, Nagabhushanam Ammal and Ranganayaki Ammal. Ranganayaki Ammal died about six years prior to the filing of the suit, therefore, her legal heirs, viz., plaintiffs 2 to 8 inherited her share in the properties. Nagabhushanam Ammal executed a release deed dated 24.04.1990 in favour for the 1st defendant.

(iii) According to the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff is entitled to 5/8th share, plaintiffs 2 to 8 are entitled to 1/8th share and the defendants are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. Since the defendants tried to claim the suit properties, the plaintiffs have filed the suit."

5. The brief case of the 1st defendant is as follows:

"(i) According to the 1st defendant, except item Nos. 1 and 3 of the suit properties, the other properties are the self acquired properties of the 1st defendant. The 1st item of the property was purchased out of the money provided by her in the her name. The 2nd plaintiff also admitted the said fact in the suit in O.S. No. 923 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif court, Arni. Therefore, the plaintiffs and the other defendants have no right in the suit properties.

(ii) According to the 1st defendant, the suit properties are not the ancestral properties of Narayanasamy Mudaliyar. The averment that the suit properties were purchased by selling the ancestral properties is false. The said Narayanasamy Mudaliyar had right only in item Nos. 1 and 3 of Schedule II. The properties were purchased by the 1st defendant out of the stridhana she received from her parent's house and by selling the gold jewellery. After purchasing the property from Thangavel Gounder and others, she constructed a house and is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 1st defendant has been paying the tax in respect of the suit properties and enjoying the suit properties as her own. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit properties. The plaintiffs cannot prevent the 1st defendant from alienating the suit properties.

(iii) According to the 1st defendant, the deceased Narayanasami Mudaliyar was entitled to 47 cents in Survey No. 218/1 and 8 cents in Survey No. 218/3 and the deceased Renaganayaki Ammal is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit properties. Similarly, the 1st plaintiff's husband is also entitled to 1/5th share in which, the 1st defendant and the 1st plaintiff are entitled to half share in the suit properties. The 1st defendant's daughter Naghabhushanam Ammal executed a release deed in respect of her own share.

(iv) According to the 1st defendant,