1. The un-successful third defendant who lost his case before the lower Appellate Court is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in the suit and respondents 5 and 6 are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondents will be hereinafter referred to as per their rank in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1497 of 1995 seeking to direct division of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into five equal shares taking good and bad soil into consideration and allot four such shares to the plaintiffs by appointing an Advocate Commissioner; directing the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of their 4/5 share in the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and if the defendants fail to do so, the plaintiffs 4/5 share in the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties may be delivered to the plaintiffs through the process of the Court and to order enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of C.P.C. for ascertaining the mesne profits payable by the third defendant for the plaintiffs 4/5 shares in the suit 'A' schedule properties from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession and to direct the third defendant to pay such mesne profits to the plaintiffs.

3. The sum and substance of the plaint averments are as follows: The first defendant married the first plaintiff as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Thus, the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. From the date of marriage, the first defendant and first plaintiff have been living together as husband and wife in the house of the first defendant. Out of the wedlock, the first defendant begot plaintiffs 2 to 4 through the first plaintiff. The first defendant also begot a male child through the first plaintiff and the said male was alive for 5 days and thereafter, died leaving behind his mother as the legal heir according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

4. The plaintiffs further aver that one Manna Gounder/ father – in – law of the first plaintiff, his step-brothers Pachaiyappa Gounder and Krishnamoorthy and their father Annamalai Gounder partitioned their ancestral Hindu Joint Family properties under registered partition deed dated 07.08.1961. The properties set out in 'A' and 'B' schedule of the plaint and several other properties were allotted to the share of Manna Gounder under the said partition. The said Manna Gounder married the second defendant as per the Hindu Rites and Customs long ago and out of the lawful wedlock, he begot two sons namely, Thirumalai, Sekhar/ first defendant and one daughter namely, Janaki, through the second defendant. The first defendant, his brother Thirumalai and their father Manna Gounder were originally constituting members of undivided Hindu Joint Family, owing, possessing and enjoying several items of ancestral properties.

5. The plaintiffs further aver that during the year 1975, the said Manna Gounder and his sons orally partitioned their ancestral joint family properties into two shares, of which, one share was allotted to Thirumalai and one share was allotted to the first defendant/ Sekhar. The said Manna Gounder out of his free will and volition did not take any share for himself in the said partition. The understanding was that his two sons should provide meals to manna Gounder in rotation for one month each in his life time. Through the said oral partition, suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were allotted to the share of the first defendant. Therefore, suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the ancestral Hindu Joint Family properties of the first defendant, plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the deceased son of the first defendant.

6. The plaintiffs further aver that as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 who are the spinster daughters of the first defendant are entitled to get equal share as that of the first defendant in the suit 'A' a