Impugning the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.09.2002, passed in O.S.No.66 of 1985, on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam, the first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

2. The suit in O.S.No.66 of 1985 has been laid by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.

3. The averments contained in the plaint are briefly stated as follows:

3.1. The suit properties originally belonged to Murugapillai alias Rathinam Pillai and he died intestate on 24.11.1976 and when he was alive, he had taken Rajammal as his wife and through her, the plaintiffs were born and all along Rajammal was living with Rathinam Pillai and Rathinam Pillai had two elder sisters, namely, Palaniammal and Sakunthala and at the instance of his sisters, Rathinam Pillai had married Rajeswari, who is the daughter of Sakunthala, as his second wife and through Rajeswari, the defendants 1 to 3 were born to Rathinam Pillai. Rathinam Pillai had shown equal affection to all his daughters and he spent for their education and after his death, the second wife Rajeswari had developed contact with one Viputhi Veeramuthuswamy and thereby, she eloped with him and also took away the first defendant along with her and subsequently, the plaintiffs learnt that Rajeswari married Viputhi Veeramuthuswamy and the two other daughters of the deceased Rathinam Pillai, namely, defendants 2 and 3, were under the care and custody of their aunt Palaniammal. Hence, Rajeswari as such is not entitled to any share in her husband's properties on account of her above said conduct and as misunderstandings had arisen between the parties and the plaintiffs finding that it is no longer possible to be in the joint possession of the suit properties and thereby demanded partition and separate possession and inasmuch as the defendants did not come forward to effect amicable partition of the same, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for partition claiming their 2/5th share in the same. Further, according to the plaintiffs, if the Court for any reason comes to the conclusion that the marriage of Rathinam Pillai with Rajammal is not proved, still she being kept as the exclusive mistress of the deceased Rathinam Pillai, the plaintiffs should be treated as his illegitimate children and thus, would be entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties.

4. The averments contained in the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3 in brief are as follows:

4.1. The suit properties originally belonged to Murugapillai alias Rathinam Pillai and it is correct to state that Rathinam Pillai died intestate on 24.11.1976. It is false to state that he had taken Rajammal as his wife when he was alive and the plaintiffs were born through Rajammal out of the above said alleged marriage between Rajammal and Rathinam Pillai and it is false to state that Rajammal was all along living with Rathinam Pillai. The date of marriage has not been given in the plaint for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs. It is true that Rathinam Pillai had two sisters, namely, Palaniammal and Sakunthala. It is false to state that Rathinam Pillai had married Rajeswari, who is the daughter of Sakunthala, as his second wife, on the other hand, Rajeswari was the only wife of Rathinam Pillai and out of the said wedlock, the defendants were born to Rathinam Pillai and Rajeswari. The plaintiffs are not the daughters of Rathinam Pillai and he expired on 24.11.1976. It is false to state that after his death, Rajeswari developed contact with one Vibuthi Veeramuthuswamy and eloped with him and took the first defendant along with her. It is true that she married Vibuthi Veeramuthuswamy and leading a married life with him. It is false to state that Rajeswari is not entitled to claim any share in suit properties. The plaintiffs not being the legal heirs of the deceased Rathinam Pillai, they cannot be deemed to be in joint possession of the suit properties and it is false to state