(1.) The 1st defendant in OS.No.93/1983, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet, is the appellant.
(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for partition.
(3.) The plaintiff's case is that he and the defendants are brothers and the 1st defendant is the eldest, the 2nd defendant is the younger and the plaintiff is the youngest of all. There are two items of the suit property and the plaintiff's claim for partition of the 2nd item is not disputed. But, however, the plaintiff's claim that he and the defendants were living jointly, without any division of the suit properties, that the 1st item of the suit property was jointly acquired by the plaintiff and the defendants, and the 1st defendant being the eldest brother, as per custom, the 1st item was purchased in his name, as he was the Kartha of the joint family, till today, the 1st defendant was managing the affairs of the family and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff and the defendants are all residing in the 1st item of the property are not admitted by the 1st defendant. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1st item was purchased in and out of the nucleus from the income of the parties, by doing weaving work and the 1st defendant was not having any separate income to purchase the 1st item. The 2nd item of the property is the ancestral property of the parties, which was also being enjoyed jointly by the plaintiff and the defendants. On 17.6.1963, the 1st defendant mortgaged the property to one Seshachala Mudaliar and the said document was attested by the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The recitals in the mortgage would disclose that the 1st defendant had recognised the joint rights of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in the 1st item of the property. Hence, the 1st defendant is estopped by his own conduct from denying the plaintiff's title in the 1st item of the property. The plaintiff further stated that he joined in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 1970 and from his personal income, he was helping the 1st defendant. The plaintiff demanded for partition and the same was not complied in spite of the notice issued on 1.4.1980 and there was no reply and hence, the suit.