JUDGMENT

The defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition have preferred the present second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs have filed the above said suit seeking partition of their 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property. As per the plaint averments, the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of one Chinniah Naicker. He had died intestate in the year 1958 leaving behind his three daughters namely Krishnammal, Saraswathi and Rathinavalli and only son Muruganandam. The legal heirs of the Krishnammal are the plaintiffs. The legal heirs of Saraswathi are arrayed as defendants 5 to 8. Another daughter of Chinniah Naicker namely Rathinavalli has been arrayed as 9^th defendant. The legal heir of the deceased son Muruganandam have been arrayed as defendants 1 to 4.

3.According to the plaintiffs, since Muruganandam was only the male legal heir of deceased Chinniah Naicker, patta was mutated in his name. However, he did not have any exclusive right over the property. After the death of Muruganandam, the defendants 1 to 4 made an attempt to alienate the property a