JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the decree and Judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration and recovery of possession and also arrears of rent, the present appeal is filed by the un-successful defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their ranking before the trial Court.

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

(i) The plaintiff's husband viz., Arunachalam Chettiyar, first defendant and one Chidambaram Chettiyar are the brothers and sons of one NAR. N. Nachiappa Chettiyar. There was a partition between father and sons on 28.12.1942. By the said partition, "B" schedule properties referred in the partition deed were allotted to the share of the first defendant, besides undivided common portion of the house which could not be partitioned. After the partition, the said NAR. N. Nachiappa Chettiyar and sons were enjoying their respective partitioned portions of properties separately and using the undivided common portion as co-owners as they are not partible.

(ii) One Vairavan Chettiyar of Kandanur filed a suit against the first defendant in O.S. No. 30 of 1958 on the file of District Munsif Court, Devakottai, for recovery of money and the said suit was decreed and execution proceedings were initiated, which ended in the sale of the first defendant's share in the common house property. It is stated by the plaintiff that the decree holder, being a stranger, was not aware of the actual partition of the house property between the father and sons. Therefore, the decree holder has attached 2/9th share of the first defendant in the entire property and brought to the sale of the said 2/9th share. The share mentioned was correct. In the court auction sale, the plaintiff purchased 2/9th share in the entire house property for Rs. 2,500/-, subject to three mortgages dated 18.05.1986, 20.06.1970 and 06.08.1971 and the auction sale was conducted on 23.06.1975 and the sale was confirmed on 28.07.1975. Thereafter, the plaintiff also took delivery of the undivided 2/9th share on 10.01.1976. Since the other sharers had owned distinct separate portion with the common enjoyment of undivided common portion, there was no need at all for the plaintiff to take any partition suit once over.

(iii) It is further contended that the execution and delivery proceedings would bind not only the first defendant but also his sons viz., defendants 2 to 6, who have been in continuous possession as members of a coparcener. The first defendant being the manager of the said joint family, the auction sale has become reached finality. After delivering the property, the first defendant and family members vacated the suit property and are residing somewhere else. Thereafter, the first defendant and his sons requested the plaintiff to reside in the property as tenants. Accordingly, the plaintiff has let out the said partitioned properties mentioned in "B" schedule of the partition deed and also all common properties as pertaining to 2/9th share, to the first defendant on fair rent of Rs. 300/- per year. It is the contention that it is not a lease for more than a year but for a year and the rent has been mentioned as consolidated amount for a year. The valid tenancy agreement was also executed. The plaintiff has been paying the house tax in her name. After the purchase of properties in Court auction, the plaintiff has also discharged the existing three mortgages. The first defendant has failed to pay the rent for the past three years despite repeated demands. Therefore, notice was sent to the first defendant on 22.06.1986 through her counsel, calling upon him to vacate the suit premises by 31.07.1986 and deliver the possession. Similar notice was also sent by Certificate of Posting. However, there was no reply by the first defendant. But, the first defendant dishonestly and fraudulently and illegally removed the Japan Marble stones affixed in walls as also the Big Belgium Glass fixed in Wa