The fourth defendant is the appellant herein. The suit was laid for partition of plaintiff's, share in the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit whereas the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted a preliminary decree of partition to the first respondent/plaintiff for 1/4th share of the suit property. Aggrieved by the decree of the first appellate court, the fourth defendant has come forward with this appeal. Narrative convenience seeks that parties be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

2. Admitted facts are:

The suit property is stated to have an extent of 34.4 cents in T.Sy. No. A/20-25 situated within the limits of Devakottai Municipality. This property originally belonged to one Venkatachalam Chettiyar. On 10-07-1961, under Ex.A-1 Venkatachalam Chettiyar had sold his property to Subburayan Ambalam.

Subburayan Ambalam's son is Periyakaruppan Ambalam, the first defendant in the suit. The first defendant had married one Muthammal, through whom, he has a son Ragunathan. Thereafter, he took one Panchavarnam as his second wife, through whom, he has three sons, viz., the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. He also has daughters through his second wife.

While so, on 14-06-1971, the first defendant had partitioned the family property with Raghunathan, born to him through his first wife. Ex.A-2 is the partition deed. The suit property along with three other properties were allotted to the share of the first defendant in the said partition.

3. The controversy: In the backdrop of the above said facts, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit contending that the suit property is ancestral in character in the hands of the first defendant; that he along with defendants 2 and 3 have equal share in the suit property; that he demanded his father to partition the properties; that on 06-08-1996, when he attempted to effect division of the suit property with the concurrence of his brothers, who are arrayed as the defendants 2 and 3, the fourth defendant obstructed the same contending that she has purchased the property. The fourth defendant, however, would not divulge how she derived title to the property. The first defendant, as the Kartha of the family has no power to alienate the ancestral property except for dire family necessities, that the joint family has been free from debts and that it does not require alienation of an ancestral property and if there is any alienation in the manner the fourth defendant contends, the same is void and it does not bind the shares of other coparceners.

There is no need for the plaintiff to seek a decree for setting aside the same and they can ignore such alienation. On the above facts, the plaintiff has sought a decree for partition.

4. Only the fourth defendant has contested the suit. Denying the allegations on which the plaintiff has found the cause of action for his suit, the fourth defendant has alleged in her written statement that: The suit property has not been allotted to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 as their joint family property; that the suit property was the personal property of the first defendant and that he has every authority to alienate his property.

On 11-08-1980, the first defendant sold the entire property under three separate sale deeds to one Kalimuthu, Valli and another Pappathi. Each of these sale deeds dealt with specific plots.

On 13-07-1984, all the purchasers from the first defendant had sold the property to the fourth defendant. Ever since the date of the purchase, the fourth defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This defendant has also improved the property by levelling it. Besides, necessary mutation has also been made in the revenue records and patta has been granted to this defendant.

The plaintiff and his brothers have other properties to seek partition, and it is strange for the plaintiff to seek partition of the suit property alone.

Alternatively, since 1984, this defen