JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition, the second appeal has been filed.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiff case is as follows :

The suit property was allotted to the father of the plaintiff Krishansawmy on lease cum sale basis by the sixth defendant. He was employed in B & C Mill. He was regularly paying the lease amount. He retired from service on 13.06.1981. After his retirement, he settled the entire amount towards the allotment. The plaintiffs and the first defendant were living together as joint family. The father of the plaintiff died on 15.08.1998 leaving behind the plaintiffs, the first defendant, his deceased daughter Renuka, the deceased wife of the second defendant and the deceased mother of the defendants 3 to 5 as his legal heirs to succeed the estate of Krishnasamy, namely the suit property. The mother of the parties also died on 22.06.1987. The daughter of Krishnasamy died in May 2003 leaving behind the defendants 2 to 4. Before his death, the deceased Krishnasamy was making payments towards the monthly lease amount to the sixth defendant. The second plaintiff was employed in Government service and he has been helping his father in making contribution towards payment of the monthly lease amount to the sixth defendant. However, arrears were liable to be paid to the sixth defendant towards the amount due under the lease-cum-sale of the suit property. On 28.04.1992, a notice was sent by the sixth defendant in the name of the plaintiff's father to pay a sum of Rs.2,444/- towards arrears due under the lease cum sale transaction. During his life time, the deceased father of the plaintiffs had divided the suit property into four shares and allotted each such share to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and also to the first defendant in an oral arrangement. When the plaintiffs' father died, it was the second plaintiff, who was able to meet all the expenditure towards conducting ceremonies on account of death of his father. It was only the second plaintiff who incurred all expenses towards conducting the marriage of the fist defendant on 11.09.1991. Since all the plaintiffs got married it was not possible for all brothers to get accommodated in the suit property and therefore, the plaintiffs were able to find their alternative accommodations out of the suit property and are living separately. Since there was no division of the property, the second plaintiff is the Kartha of the joint family. The first defendant approached the first plaintiff in May 1997 to give consent in writing for name transfer with respect of the suit in the records. However, the first defendant approached fourth plaintiff and obtained his signature in blank revenue stamp papers on the pretext of getting the records from the 6th defendant in the name of all the brothers. Taking advantage of the fact the plaintiffs are residing out of the suit property and misusing the blank papers where the signatures of the plaintiffs were obtained, got sale deed executed in his favour from the sixth defendant. Hence, the suit for partition of the suit property and to allot 4/6 share to the plaintiff.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that his father was employed in B & C Mill at Chennai and as a labourer belonging to economically weaker section of the society, an extent of 800 sq.ft. was allotted to him in the year 1983. Thereafter, the rent payable to the house has been paid by the first defendant. He paid the rent from 1981 to 1991 till his demise. His eldest sister was given in marriage in the year 1968 and his second sister was married in the year 1974. The second plaintiff and the fourth plaintiff also left the house immediately after the demise of their father. The entire amount payable to the Tamilnadu Housing Board has been paid only by him. By Order dated 30.05.1999, the first defenda