JUDGMENT :

C. SARAVANAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the Decree and Judgment dated 17.04.2007 made in A.S. No. 4 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court at Krishnagiri, which confirmed the Decree and Judgment dated 27.09.2004, made in O.S. No. 368 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, at Krishnagiri.

1. This case was not admitted when it was listed for admission. On the other hand, notice of admission was ordered without framing substantial questions of law. The successful plaintiffs, who are the first to third respondents herein are thus present and are represented by their counsel.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants and the first to third respondents, this appeal was taken up for final hearing and final disposal. For the sake of clarity, the ranks of the parties before the Trial shall be referred.

3. In this appeal, the appellant (second defendant) has raised the following questions of law for consideration:-

(i) Whether the Courts below erred in not framing an issue to determine who was really the owner of the suit schedule property, i.e. Ellammal and the third defendant Chinnathambi?

(ii) Whether the Courts below erred and committed grave miscarriage of justice in not taking into consideration at all the evidence of DW-4, much less not mention his evidence in the list of witnesses in the judgment at all?

(iii) Whether the Court below have completely ignored or evaded the link between motive for the murder of Ellammal and the execution of Ex.A1 in her name by her husband, the third defendant Chinnathambi (and the consequent criminal proceedings against the murderer)?

(iv) Whether the Courts below are right in overlooking the legal requirement that the parties for a partition suit are required to show/plead joint possession of the property to be partitioned whereas the property in the instant case was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the third defendant and his children through Ellammal after her death?

4. The first to third respondents were the first to third plaintiffs before the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court) in O.S. No. 368 of 1989. Their father Ponnusamy (since deceased) was the fourth plaintiff in the said suit.

5. The fourth respondent herein was the first defendant while the appellant was the second defendant. Their father Chinnathambi (since deceased) was the third defendant in the said suit.

6. The appellant and the respondents herein are the children of late Ellammal. The first to third plaintiffs (first to third respondents) are the children born to late Ellammal and the fourth plaintiff Ponnusamy. The first and the second defendants are also the children of late Ellammal sired by the third defendant Chinnathambi (since deceased).

7. The plaintiffs (the first to third respondents with their father) had filed O.S. No. 368 of 1989 to partition the suit schedule property purchased in the year 1977 in the name of late Ellammal when she was living with the defendants. The Trial Court had decreed the suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2004.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2004 of the Trial Court, the second defendant (appellant) and filed A.S. No. 4 of 2006 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Court).

9. The Appellate Court dismissed A.S. No. 4 of 2006 by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.2007. Thus, the second defendant (appellant) has filed this Second Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.2007 passed by the Appellate Court.

10. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S. No. 368 of 1989 was that the suit schedule property was purchased in the year 1977 vide Ex.A1 dated 10.08.1977 by late Ellammal and therefore they were also entitled to a share in the same being her legal heirs.

11. It was the defence of the first to third defendants before the Trial Co