JUDGMENT :

Suit in O.S.No.111 of 1986 filed for partition was partly allowed. Hence, in respect of the disallowed portion, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal Suit.

2. For clarity sake, the parties are referred to their status and ranking found in the trial Court decree.

3. The factual background of the case:

O.S.No.111 of 1986:-

The suit property belongs to one Chinnammal. The first plaintiff Palaniammal is her daughter. The second plaintiff Natesan Servai is the husband of Chinnammal. Chinnammal's elder son Jambulingam is the defendant in the suit. On the demise of Chinnammal intestate, claiming 2/3rd share in the suit property of Chinnammal, the suit has been filed alleging that the defendant having developed animosity with the co-sharers, causing act of waste of the joint family property and also declining to divide the property among the sharers. Instead of allowing them to enjoy the suit property, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering the possession. Hence, there is no purpose in continuing the joint enjoyment.

4. Pending suit, the second plaintiff (Natesan Servai), who is the husband of Chinnammal died on 19.12.1987. During his lifetime, he had executed a registered Will dated 01.10.1986 in favour of the third plaintiff (Marimuthu) and therefore, the third plaintiff is impleaded being a necessary party. In the plaint, 23 items of immovable properties were enlisted in the schedule and 2/3 rd share claimed in each of the properties.

5. The sole defendant filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs stating that his mother Chinnammal is the daughter of one Karuppanna Servai. The said Karuppanna Servai had no male issues. Hence, he and his wife Nallammal brought up the defendant from his young age and he improved the estate of Karuppanna Servai by his hard work. The properties were handed over by Karuppanna Servai and Nallammal to Chinnammal for the benefit of the defendant since the defendant was a minor. The entire suit properties are in possession and enjoyment of the defendant for more than 12 years by paying tax. The defendant have no right over the property. The plaintiffs never in joint possession or enjoyed the property jointly at any point of time. The defendant directly inherited the property from his grand father. Only till he attains majority, during the interregnum period, his mother Chinnammal was administering the property on his behalf. Chinnammal had no exclusive right in the suit property. Hence, the plea of the plaintiffs that the suit property belongs to Chinnammal, is factually incorrect. There is no custom to give share in the family property to female members. As per custom, the defendant had provided enough streedhanam during the first plaintiff Palaniammal's marriage. He performed the marriage of the first plaintiff, as per the family custom. He provided 32 sovereign of jewels, a cow, 6 goats, two set of silver anklets, 51 items of brass and bronze articles, a sheep and periodical Pongal and Deepavali steer. Besides that for the past 24 years he has been providing groceries to the first plaintiff as seer as per the custom. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to seek partition in the property, which is being enjoyed by him exclusively for more than 12 years. Since the plaintiffs are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession in the suit property, he has already approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.349 of 1986 on the file of the Ariyalur District Munsif Court seeking permanent injunction against the first plaintiff (Palaniammal) and the said suit is pending.

6. For recovery of money, he has also initiated another suit O.S.No.345 of 1986 against Palaniammal and others. His father, who is the second plaintiff, is 80 years old. Certain properties were purchased in his name being the eldest male member of the family. Taking advantage of his old age, the first plaintiff in connivance with