The plaintiff is the daughter of K.Subbiah and the first and second defendants are the sons and daughter of late K.Subbiah and the third and fourth defendants are the grand children of the pre-deceased son of late K.Subbiah.

2. This suit has been filed seeking partition of the estate of K.Subbiah and the plaintiff seeks 1/4th undivided share. The first defendant is entitled to another 1/4th share. The second defendant is entitled to another 1/4th share. The third and fourth defendants are jointly entitled for another 1/4th share.

3. It had been stated by the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff late K.Subbiah died on 29.12.2005. He died intestate leaving behind an estate comprising of movable and immovable properties which were self owned by him. He had also started a few companies both private limited and public limited and also a ran businesses including proprietary concerns. It had been stated that the compromise talks among the parties herein had failed and consequently, this suit has been filed seeking partition. The second defendant had filed the written statement admitting the relationship and stating that they were several attempts at compromise, but the compromise did not materialise. It had been further stated that the land at Nellur District is substantial and further the companies had run into loss. It had been stated that the second defendant was discharging the loan of the said companies. The fourth defendant also filed written statement again admitting relationship among the parties and also the fact that the properties have to be divided in the ratio as mentioned in the plaint. It had been further stated that with respect to the properties of the companies, the shares alone can be divided and it is for the shareholders to decide with respect to the estate of the company. The third defendant adopted the written statement of the fourth defendant. On consideration of the pleadings, this Court had framed the following issues:-

“(i) Whether the suit schedule mentioned properties are divisible in nature?;

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the schedule properties comprised in the estate of late K.Subbiah, morefully described in the schedules to the plaint and whether it can be divided by metes and bounds?;

(iii) Whether the defendants be directed to render true and proper accounts of the income earned through the properties, running businesses and properties purchased thereof from and out of the assets and businesses of late K.Subbiah and give 1/4th share thereof to the plaintiff?;

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction restraining the second defendant, her agents and servants, any person and every person claiming through or under her in any manner disturbing the plaintiff's use, occupation and enjoyment of the property morefully described as item No. 2 in the schedule to the plaint?;

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree in the above suit as prayed for?”

4. Since all the issues are inter-related with each other, they are taken together. During trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and filed Exs. P-1 to P-21. The defendants did not lead any oral evidence and did not mark any documents. The plaintiff was also cross examined on behalf of the defendants 3 and 4.

5. While hearing the arguments in the main case, it had been represented by the learned counsel for the second defendant that the second defendant had not come forward to give any instructions. Consequently, after notice was served on the second defendant, the second defendant was set ex-parte. However, even though the second defendant has been set ex-parte, since she is entitled to 1/4th share in the properties of her father, the suit is proceeded on that basis.

6. A perusal of the plaint and the pleadings reveal that the relationship among the parties is admitted. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share. The first defendant is entitled to 1/4th share. The second defend