JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the reversal finding of the First Appellate Court, decreeing the suit filed for partition, the present Second Appeal is filed.

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

3. The brief fact, leading to file this Second Appeal, reads as follows:-

The plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and one Rathinavelu are the brothers. The second defendant died during the pendency of, the suit. His legal heirs were added as defendants 4 and 5. Subsequently, the fourth defendant also died. His legal heirs also added as defendants 6 to 8. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father by name Arunachala Chettiar died on 10.11.1958, leaving the Will dated 06.11.1958, under which he directed the sons to take all properties with equal shares and they have to meet the marriage expenses of their sisters. The plaintiff and the defendants and another brother, namely Rathinavelu, who is not alive now, all of them constituted joint family. The defendants 1 and 2 were managing the estate, left behind by the said Arunachala Chettiar. The estate was a large one yielding very huge income, The plaintiff and his brother one Rathinavelu were minors at the time of death of their father. The third defendant was the student during the death of his father. The defendants 1 and 2 were realizing all the income from the joint family estate till the year 1975. The plaintiff herein filed the suit for partition in O.S. No. 82 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and final decree in the above suit was passed on 31.07.1991. The suit property was not included in the above said suit. The omission was due to inadvertence. The plaintiff came to know the availability of the suit property of partition only at the very later date of the said suit. The suit property was joint family property, belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants. The property was purchased in the name of the second defendant from the income of the estate left behind by the said Arunachala Chettiar. This fact is mentioned in the account relating to the estate. The suit property was purchased in the name of the second defendant by means of three sale deeds on 21.11.1964 from Duraisamy Nadar, Ramasamy Nadar, Chelladurai and others. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was used for the said purchase and a sum of Rs. 145.90/- was used for stamp towards registration expenses, which have been entered into the joint family accounts ledger in Page No. 106 relates to the year 1964. As soon as the plaintiff came to know about the omission to include the suit property in the earlier suit, he filed an application in I.A. No. 81 of 1989 in O.S. No. 82 of 1975, amending the plaint and the preliminary decree adding the suit property. The trial Court has allowed the petition, however, the revision filed before this Court by the second defendant was allowed. Against the order of the High Court, the plaintiff has filed S.L.P. No. 12558 of 1991 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted permission to file a separate suit, claiming partition on the schedule property. The schedule mentioned property lies adjacent to the Survey Nos. 1772, 1775, 1776 with total extent of 54 acres. These items are the subject matter of partition suit in O.S. No. 82 of 1975. The access to the said survey number is only through the schedule mentioned property. The said extent of 54 acres has been allotted to the plaintiff and the defendants in separate portions under the final decree passed in O.S. No. 82 of 1975. Hence, the suit is filed for partition, claiming 1/4 share in the schedule mentioned property.

4. The first defendant has filed written statement, admitting that the suit property was purchased from the income of the joint family and the second defendant has not filed any sale consideration and it is only joint family property.

5. The second defendant has filed written statement, denying the contention that the suit property is joint family