The appellants are the defendants 5 to 15 in a suit for partition. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court allowed the Appeal and thereby decreed the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

a. The first plaintiff is the daughter and the second plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. The suit property originally belonged to one Subramani Asari. He died instate leaving behind his sons namely, first to third defendants to inherit the property. Therefore, the first plaintiff being the daughter of the first defendant, is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit property along with her father. The second and third defendants are entitled to 1/6th share each. The fourth defendant is the co-purchaser of the suit property. The first defendant, was ill advised by the second and third defendants and they were attempting to deprive the first plaintiff's share in the suit property. Therefore, the first plaintiff demanded partition of the suit property. The defendants, instead of answering her claim attempted to alienate the suit property including the share of the first plaintiff. Hence, the relief of partition is sought for.

b. Pending suit, the first defendant died on 05.08.2000 leaving the plaintiffs as his only legal representatives. Accordingly the second plaintiff was arrayed as a party in the suit along with the first plaintiff. The second defendant died on 16.08.2001 and his legal representatives were brought on record as fifth to seventh defendants. The third defendant died on 26.08.2001 and his legal representatives were brought on record as eighth to tenth defendants. The fourth defendant died on 14.07.2001 and his legal representatives were brought on record as eleventh to fifteenth defendants.

c. Pending suit, as the first defendant died, the shares of the parties have fluctuated. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/24th share each respectively from the share of the first defendant. Thus, the first plaintiff is entitled to 1/12 + 1/24 = 3/24th share and second plaintiff is entitled to 1/24th share.

3. The fifth defendant filed written statement which was adopted by the sixth to fifteenth defendants. The fifth defendant is the wife of the second defendant. The case of the fifth to fifteenth defendants is as follows:

a. The first plaintiff is not the daughter of the first defendant. The plaintiffs are not the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. The second plaintiff separated from the union of the first defendant as early as in the year 1987 and the first plaintiff was not born to the second plaintiff through the first defendant. The second plaintiff has converted to another religion and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the prayer for partition according to Hindu Law.

b. The first defendant married the second plaintiff 20 years ago and they lived together only for two years as husband and wife. Thereafter, they were not able to live together. On 10.03.1987, a Panchayat Muchalika with free consent was executed by 2nd plaintiff through which they got divorce according to their caste custom. At the time of Panchayat Muchalika, the second plaintiff was subjected to undergo medical test in which she was found, not pregnant. Pursuant to such divorce, the second plaintiff married another person, through whom only she begotten a female child, namely, the first plaintiff.

c. The said Subramani Asari and one Arumuga Asari purchased the properties on 10.02.1962 and they orally divided the same long ago. Thus, Subramani Asari became entitled to 20-1/4 acres and after his death, the property devolved upon the second defendant and his two brothers and they got 1/3rd share each and they had been enjoying the same in common. One of such brothers namely, the first defendant executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 04.07.2000 in respect of his 1/3rd share in favour of the second defendant. Subsequently, he had executed a Will on 3