JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2013 in A.S.No.62 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Sub-Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.103 of 2008 dated 27.04.2012 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Erode.)

1. This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal:

2. The Appellants 1, 2 and 3 are the defendants 1, 2 and 13 respectively in the suit O.S.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode. The first respondent is the plaintiff, the respondents 2 to 11 are the defendants 3 to 12, the respondents 12 to 17 are the defendants 14 to 19 in the suit O.S.No.103 of 2008. During the pendency of this second appeal, the fifth respondent died and respondents 18 to 21 were brought on record as his legal representatives by order of this Court dated 22.06.2016 passed in CMP.Nos.7949 to 7951 of 2016.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.103 of 2008 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode against the defendants seeking for partition of her 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that Chinnappa Gounder died on 21.04.1998 leaving behind the plaintiff who is his daughter, the first defendant who is his son, the third defendant who is also his daughter and Thangammal who is his wife as his legal heirs. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the wife of Chinnappa Gounder namely Thangammal also died on 14.05.2001. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and Chinnappa Gounder and the first defendant were coparceners and in joint ownership. It is her case that after the demise of her father, Chinnappa Gounder, she is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. With these averments, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition seeking 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties.

5. The first defendant who is the son of Chinnappa Gounder has filed a written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff. According to him, the plaintiff as well as the third defendant have been adequately compensated through gifts/seers at the time of their respective marriages. It is the case of the first defendant that he only performed the marriages for both the plaintiff as well as the third defendant by spending considerable sum of money and by providing articles during the time of their respective marriages. Therefore, according to the first defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition. It is also the case of the first defendant that Chinnappa Gounder was taken care of till his death only by him and the plaintiff did not have cordial relationship with Chinnappa Gounder. The third defendant who is the sister of the plaintiff remained exparte before the Trial Court, however, she is represented by a learned counsel before this Court. The defendants 2 and 13 who are the son and wife of the first defendant respectively have adopted the written statement of the first defendant. The defendants 4, 5 and 7 are the purchasers of the second item of the property from the first defendant and they remained ex parte before the Trial court. The defendants 8, 9 & 10 who are the revenue authorities remained exparte before the Trial Court. The defendants 14 to 19 are the purchaser of a portion of the third item of the suit schedule properties from the first defendant. They were represented by a counsel before the lower appellate court, but before this court, even though they have been duly served, they are unrepresented.

6. The Trial Court after framing issues and after trial, passed a preliminary decree in the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff by its judgment and decree dated 27.04.2012 passed in O.S.No.103 of 2008. Aggr