(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment in O. S. No. 402/1987 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal.
(2.) THE short facts in the plaint sans irrelevant particulars for deciding this appeal are as follows: the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition of their 2/6th share in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs are the brothers. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiffs. The second defendant is the younger brother of the first defendant. The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs are entitled to each 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties. The second defendant is entitled to = share in the plaint schedule properties. The first defendant, who is the father of the plaintiffs was leading wayward life, after deserting the mother of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is an addict to drinks and gambling. In the panchayat held in the year 1976, two acres of land was allotted to the plaintiffs from out of the joint family properties towards their maintenance. From that date onwards, the plaintiffs and their mother are living separately. The first defendant took an arrack shop in the Government Public auction in the year 1981 and he was liable to pay Rs. 53,000/- every month towards tax. The first defendant was paying the said tax regularly for a period of three months which amounts to Rs. 1,59,000/ -. Since the licence to conduct the said arrack shop was not extended by the 3rd and 4th defendants, the first defendant could not continue the arrack shop business. Hence 3rd and 4th defendants to re auctioned the arrack shop No,4, which resulted in a loss of Rs. 3,86,465/- to the Government. To set right the loss, 3rd and 4th defendant brought the plaint schedule properties on 16. 10. 1987 in a public auction. In spite of the objections made by the plaintiffs to the effect that their shares in the suit properties cannot be auctioned, the 3rd and 4th defendants ignoring the same, proceeded with the auction. The plaintiffs are entitled to each 2/6th share in the plaint schedule properties. Hence the suit.
(3.) THE first defendant and the second defendant remained exparte.