JUDGMENT G. RAJASURIA, J. This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1995 passed in O.S. No. 323 of 1991 by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, which is a suit for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. The portrayal and parodying of the case of the plaintiffs, succinctly and precisely, niggard and bereft of details, as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus: a) The couple Nagammal and Sundaram Pillai had three sons and four daughters, viz., 1. S. Sarangapani, 2. S. Varadharaj, 3. S. Chandrasekar, 4. K. Dhanabakkiyam, 5. K. Jayalakshmi, 6. P. Indirani, 7. S. Sarojini. b) The first son Sarangapani died leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff and his children viz., plaintiffs 2 to 9. c) The second son, Varadharaj, died leaving behind his wife Dhanalakshmi, the first defendant and his children, viz., defendants 2 to 5. d) The third son of Naganvnal and Sundaram Pillai is the sixth defendant. e) The defendants 7 to 10 are the daughters of the deceased Nagammal. f) In the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint ¼th share was purchased by the said Nagammal as per registered sale deed dated 16.3.1942. Nagammal's deceased first son Sarangapani purchased the remaining 3/4 th share as per registered sale deed dated 17.3.1970, out of his own earnings and that said 3/4th share became his absolute property. The said Sarangapani after demolishing the structure in his said ¾th share, which bore Old Door No. 512, raised a new construction and a new number was assigned to it as New Door No. 999, Nethaji Road, Erode-2. As such, the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of deceased Sarangapani, are the absolute owners of the said property of Sarangapani. The defendants 7 to 10, being the daughters of Nagammal got married and settled in their respective husband's places. The said deceased Varadharaj and D6 Chandrasekaran were living in the 1/4th share of the property purchased by Nagammal, who died in the year 1982 and Sarangapani, the propositus of the plaintiffs died in the year 1984. Varadharaj died in the year 1991. Subsequently, there arose misunderstanding among the parties to the suit relating to their right over the plaint scheduled property. Varadharaj died in the year 1991. Subsequently, there arose misunderstanding among the parties to the suit relating to their right over the plaint scheduled property. Hence, the suit for partition seeking the following main reliefs: i) directing the division of the plaintiff schedule properties into 140 equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil. ii) allotting to and putting the plaintiffs 110 shares consecutively the portion where in the building old D. No. 512 and New D. No. 999 constructed by deceased Sarangapani is situate and the building bearing D. No. 512 and New D. No. 999, Nethaji Street, Erode. 3. Remonstrating and refitting, gainsaying and impugning, the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1 to D5 and D7 to D10. a) The said 3/4th share in the plaint scheduled property belonged to E.V. Ramasami Naicker and the 1/4th share belonged to Nagammal. Between the two there arose a litigation in O.S. No. 58 of 1943 for partition and possession. Ultimately, the suit was compromised. Since the said property could not be divided, the said E.V. Ramasami Naicker wanted to sell the said ¾th share but not to Nagammal, who fought tooth and nail in litigation against him but in favour of Sarangapani, being the eldest son of the family of the Nagammal, Hence, in such circumstances only, the sale deed dated 17.3.1970 emerged in favour of Sarangapani on behalf of the entire family. b) The allegations in the plaint that Sarangapani demolished the structure in the ¾th share and raised a new building out of his own earnings is false. The said new building was raised from out of the income derived from the joint family business, viz., lorry business, which was conducted under the name and style "Erode Transport Syndicate" situated at No. 1, Park Road and the said business was a family business. Since suit property happens to be the joint family property, the sons are each entitled to 9/32 shares while the mother and daughters are each entitled to 1/32th share, Nagammal's 1/32 share has been inherited by her heirs equally. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, on the plaintiffs' side one Shanmuga Sundaram was examined as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-12 were marked. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, on the plaintiffs' side one Shanmuga Sundaram was examined as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-12 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exhibits B-1 to B-11 were marked. Ultimately, the trial Court ordered partition and passed preliminary decree, ordering division of the entire immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint into 140 equal shares and allotted shares as prayed by the plaintiffs. 5. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial Court, the defendants 2 to 9 have filed this appeal on the following grounds among others: (i) the judgment and decree of the trial Court are against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. (ii) Ignoring the admission made by P.W.1, that the lorry business was started by his grandfather, viz., father of Sarangapani, the trial Court held as though Sarangapani had independent business and from out of the earnings from such business, he purchased the ¾th share in the suit property. (iii) the lower Court failed to note that Sarangapani himself permitted his brothers to live in the property purchased in his name. (iv) Exhibits A-1 to A-12 do not demonstrate that the deceased Sarangapani had separate business and income. Simply because, Chandrasekar and Varadharaj were shown as drivers, it cannot be construed that they were employees under Sarangapani and only for the purpose of accounting they were shown as drivers. (v) Exhibits B-1 to B-6 would exemplify that the lorry 9 business was only a joint family business and not a separate business of Sarangapani. (vi) Exhibits B-7 to B-10 passbooks would refer to the address of the business premises. Exhibits B-11 would indicate Varadharaj as the Proprietor of "Erode Transport Syndicate." Even after the death of Sarangapani in the year 1994, Varadharaja was shown as the owner of the business. If really 3/4th share belongs to the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of Sarangapani, they should have asked for declaration and not for partition. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 6. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on either side. 7. The points for consideration are as to: 1. If really 3/4th share belongs to the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of Sarangapani, they should have asked for declaration and not for partition. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 6. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on either side. 7. The points for consideration are as to: 1. Whether the 3/4th share in the property described in the schedule of the plaint was purchased by Sarangapani, the propositus of plaintiffs pom out of his own income derived from his separate business or whether the said ¾th share was purchased from out of the income derived from the joint family lorry business? 2. Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial Court? Point No. 1: 8. The relationship among the parties is an admitted one. The bone of contention of the plaintiffs is that the 3/4th share of the property described in the schedule of the plaint, was purchased by Sarangapani as per Exhibit A-2, the sale deed dated 17.3.1970 from out the income derived from his separate lorry business. Whereas the defendants would contend otherwise to the effect that Sarangapani, being the eldest male member in the family, purchased the property referred to therein for and on behalf of the entire joint family. 9. The perusal of Exhibit A-2, the sale deed dated 17.3.1970 would reveal that Sarangapani purchased the said 3/4th share in his own name as his own property. Nowhere it is found recited therein that the said EVR expressed his desire not to sell the property in the name of Nagammal because she litigated with him. But, on the other hand, the recitals would be as under: (emphasis supplied) It is therefore, crystal clear from the recitals that Sarangapani purchased the property in his own name and not on behalf of the joint family members as alleged in the written statement. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would appropriately and appositely advance his argument by drawing the attention of this Court to the fact that the said Nagammal attested Exhibit A-2, which was executed and signed by EVR and that itself would connote, it was not as though at the time of sale, EVR had grudge as against Nagammal that the property should not be sold to Nagammal. Had both of them continued to be at logger heads and could not see eye to eye, in view of the prolonged litigation that persisted between them, then EVR would not have agreed for Nagammal attesting his signature in Exhibit A-2, the sale deed. The recitals in Exhibit A-2 is to the effect that Nagammal was not willing to sell her ¼th share in favour of EVR as she had no other property and that was also one of the reasons, which actuated and accentuated, propelled and impelled EVR to sell the ¼th share in favour of Sarangapani and not that he did not like to execute the sale in favour of Nagammal as alleged by the defendants. 11. The learned counsel for the defendants would contend that Sarangapani had no independent business to earn income and purchase the said 1/4th extent of property, the joint family of Sundaram Pillai were running lorry business and following the same, the eldest son of Sundaram Pillai, viz., Sarangapani continued the business with the help of his other brothers and earned money and from out of that money only, the said3/4th extent was purchased as per Exhibit A-2. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that there had been no income bearing joint family nucleus, from which, the family generated income for purchasing the said 3/4th share in the property from the said EVR; the said Sarangapani had his own lorry business as evidenced by the various documents exhibited during trial and from out of his income, he purchased in his own name the said property exclusively and not on behalf of the alleged joint family and Sarangapani enjoyed the suit property exclusively by treating it as his own property. 13. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with several decisions, which emerged relating to the issue involved in this case. (i) AIR 1954 SC 379 . An excerpt from it would run thus: "8. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. (i) AIR 1954 SC 379 . An excerpt from it would run thus: "8. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property. 10. Whether the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to shift the burden which initially rested on him of establishing that there was adequate nucleus out of which the acquisitions could have been made is one of fact depending on the nature and the extent of the nuclei. The important thing to consider is the income which the nucleus yields. A building in the occupation of the members of a family and yielding no income could not be a nucleus out of which acquisitions could be made, even though it might be of considerable value. On the other hand, a running business in which the capital invested is comparatively small might conceivably produce substantial income, which may well form the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions. These are not abstract questions of law, but questions of fact to be determined on the evidence in the case. Where the finding of the Courts is that the income from the ancestral lands was not sufficient even for the maintenance of the members, and the houses in dispute are substantial, burden is on the plaintiff who alleges the houses to have been acquired out of joint family funds, to establish it. Held that if the contention that on proof of the existence of the Watan lands the burden had shifted on to the defendants to prove that the acquisitions were made without the aid of joint family funds that burden had been discharged. Held that if the contention that on proof of the existence of the Watan lands the burden had shifted on to the defendants to prove that the acquisitions were made without the aid of joint family funds that burden had been discharged. Likewise, it was held that since the ancestral Watan lands are intact, and were available for partition, and the small income derived from them must have been utilized for the maintenance of the members of the family, whether it were held mat the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden which lay on him of establishing sufficient nucleus, or that the defendants had discharged the burden of establishing that the acquisitions were made without the aid of joint family funds, the result was the same." (ii) AIR 1960 SC 335 and an excerpt from it would run thus: "5. There is a presumption in Hindu law mat a family is joint. There can be a division in status among the members of a joint Hindu family by refinement of shares which is technically called "division in status", or an actual division among them by allotment of specific property to each one of them which is described as "division by metes and bounds." A member need not receive any share in the joint estate but may renounce his interest therein, his renunciation merely extinguishes his interest in the estate but does not affect the status of the remaining members vis-a-vis the family properly. A division in status can be effected by an unambiguous declaration to become divided from the others and that intention can be expressed by any process. Though prima facie a document clearly expressing the intention to divide brings about a division in status, it is open to a party to prove that the said document was a sham or a nominal one not intended to be acted upon but was conceived and executed for an ulterior purpose. But there is no presumption that any property, whether movable or immovable, held by a member of a joint Hindu family, is joint family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. But there is no presumption that any property, whether movable or immovable, held by a member of a joint Hindu family, is joint family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. But if he proves that there was sufficient joint family nucleus from and out of which the said property could have been acquired, the burden shifts to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property to establish that the said property has been acquired without any assistance from the Joint family property." (iii) The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court (1976) 2 MLJ 225 and an excerpt from it would run thus: "18. The properties purchased by one or other of the members of a co-parcenery or joint family when the family is joint cannot as a matter of course be treated as joint family property. The co-parcener who challenges such title in the member and pleads that they should also be brought to the hotch-pot ought to establish by cogent and mature evidence that there was enough surplus income which was available in the joint family and which positively could be the foundation for such annexures made by one or the other of the members of the joint family. In all cases definite proof is required that the further purchase in the names of joint family members ought to have been made and could not have been made otherwise than from the surplus income of the family. For a greater reason the rule is made strict in the case of properties in the name of female members. The fact that a female member in a joint family has properties in her own name would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the origin of such properties should be traced to the joint family or to the income from the joint family, inasmuch as the stridhanam property of a female and possession of property by her have been recognised from ancient times." (iv) Yet another decision is (1978) 1 MLJ 56 . 14. The learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (2007) 1 SCC 521 : (2007) 8 MLJ 783. An excerpt from it would run thus at p. 792 of MLJ: "11. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (2007) 1 SCC 521 : (2007) 8 MLJ 783. An excerpt from it would run thus at p. 792 of MLJ: "11. Therefore, on survey of the aforesaid decisions what emerges is that there is no presumption of a joint Hindu family but on the evidence if it is established that the property was joint Hindu family property and the other properties were acquired out of that nucleus, if the initial burden is discharged by the person who claims joint Hindu family, then the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property by cogent and necessary evidence." The aforesaid decisions are also referred to in this judgment. As such, the perusal of the aforesaid decisions would clearly highlight that the Hon'ble Apex Court is uniform in holding that simply because a property stands in the name of one of the co-parceners, there is no presumption that it should be treated as the co-parcenery property or the joint family property, as the case may be, unless there is proof to show that at the time of purchasing the property there existed an income bearing joint family nucleus so as to enable the co-parcener to purchase the said property from out of such joint family income. 15. It is therefore crystal clear .that the initial burden is on the defendants in this case, who plead that ¼th share of the suit property was purchased by Sarangapani on behalf of the co-parcenery of deceased Sundaram Pillai. It has to be seen, as to whether, the defendants proved that there existed a co-parcenery among Sundaram Pillai and his sons. Simply because, a Hindu had male issues, there is no presumption that there existed a co-parcenery among the father and sons. The aforesaid decisions also would highlight that there should be some evidence to exemplify that co-parcenery existed. 16. Simply because, a Hindu had male issues, there is no presumption that there existed a co-parcenery among the father and sons. The aforesaid decisions also would highlight that there should be some evidence to exemplify that co-parcenery existed. 16. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would correctly draw the attention of this Court to the evidence of D.W.1 Chandrasekaran (D6) and advance his argument that even though DW1 (Do) happened to be the only surviving son of Sundaram Pillai, he could not buttress or fortify the contention of the defendants as found in the written statement that the alleged co-parcenery of Sundaram Pillai had lorry transport business and that Sundaram Pillai's sons continued that business as family business. In fact, D.W.1 (D6), during cross examination had stated thus: (emphasis supplied) It is therefore crystal clear from his own admission during cross examination that, by way of discharging the initial burden, no exiguous or miniscule extent of evidence was adduced by the defendants so as to point out that there existed co-parcenery status among Sundaram Pillai and his sons and that after his death, his sons continued the alleged family lorry transport business. D.W.1 (D6), it appears tried to dish out a theory as though Sundaram Pillai was running a Soda factory, but, no such details are found set out in the written statement also. He would also candidly admit, during cross examination that when Sarangapani, the propositus of the plaintiffs was purchasing the ¾th share from EVR, Sundaram Pillai and Nagammal were very much alive, Exhibit A-7, the death Certificate of Sundaram Pillai would reveal that he died on 18.6.1973 only at Door No. 511, Nethaji Road, so to say, on the 1/4th share belonging to Nagammal. Admittedly, Nagammal died on 6.10.1981 as revealed by Exhibit A-8, the death Certificate at the same door No. 511, Nethaji Road, which refers to the ¼th share of Nagammal. There is no indication as to why, then the suit property was not purchased in the name of Sundaram Pillai, if really, from out of the joint family funds the said ¼th share was purchased as per Exhibit A-2. 17. It is a trite proposition of law that witnesses might he but the circumstances would not lie. It is therefore clear that when Sarangapani purchased the suit property as per Exhibit A-2, he was not even the kartha of the alleged co-parcenery. 18. 17. It is a trite proposition of law that witnesses might he but the circumstances would not lie. It is therefore clear that when Sarangapani purchased the suit property as per Exhibit A-2, he was not even the kartha of the alleged co-parcenery. 18. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, by placing reliance, on the Salary/Wages ledger maintained by Sarangapani, viz.,Exhibit A-12, in the course of conducting his lorry transport business, would advance his argument that Chandrasekar D.W.1 (D6) and deceased Varadharaj, the propositus of D1 to D5 received salary as drivers under him and they were not co-parceners. D.W.1 (D6) in his deposition could not adequately explain as to why he received the salary as driver from his brother Sarangapani. 19. P.W.1 Shanmuga Sundaram (P5), son of deceased Sarangapani clearly and categorically deposed before the Court that Varadharaj and Chandrasekar received salary as drivers from Sarangapani and as against such evidence, Chandrasekar himself has not furnished any evidence as to why he received salary from his brother, if he happened to be a co-parcener entitled to the business. 20. Exhibit A-9 series comprises of three documents, viz., Two documents are the two letters dated 21.3.1983 and 31.3.1995 in the letter head bearing the caption as under: "S. Sarangapani, Erode Transport Syndicate - Transporting Agents and Contractors, No. 1, Park Road, Erode-1." It appears he was transporting cement for Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited and keep Diesel Trucks at the disposal of the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs Co-Axial Cable Project, Tirunelveli respectively for the use of that department. One other document is the letter dated 30.7.1976 signed by the Section Officer, Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills, Sugarcane Road Development Scheme, Arani Road, Vellore-l, marking a copy to Sarangapani and in that Sarangapani is found referred as under: "S. Sarangapani, Erode Transport Syndicate (Transporting Agents and Contractors), No. 1, Park Road, Erode-1." 21. Exhibit A-10 is the Savings Bank Passbook issued by State Bank of India, Erode to Sarangapani and that he was referred to there in as Lorry owner at No. 1, Park Road, Erode. All these documents would clearly highlight that Sarangapani was having his own proprietory- Lorry Transport business. 22. Exhibit A-10 is the Savings Bank Passbook issued by State Bank of India, Erode to Sarangapani and that he was referred to there in as Lorry owner at No. 1, Park Road, Erode. All these documents would clearly highlight that Sarangapani was having his own proprietory- Lorry Transport business. 22. In the grounds of appeal, Exhibit B-11 is relied on, which is to the obsequies ceremony card concerning the death of Varadharaj and the contention on the side of the defendants is to the effect that in Exhibit B-11, Varadharaj was described as the owner of the Erode Transport Syndicate. To say the least, such sort of cards in the facts and circumstances of this case would have no evidentiary value of its own and no more elaboration in this regard is required. 23. Exhibit B-3 is the letter addressed by Sarangapani to the Divisional Manager, Highways, Erode and that also bore only the signature of Sarangapani. 24. Exhibit B-4, Exhibit B-5 and Exhibit B-6 are all the delivery challans cum invoices concerning Indian Oil Corporation Limited, which would exemplify that the signature of the Sarangapani is found therein above the seal, Erode Transport Syndicate, No. 1, Park Road, Erode and in no way that helps the case of the defendants. 25. Exhibit B-7, Exhibit B-8, Exhibit B-9 and Exhibit B-10 are the Savings Bank pass books issued by the Post Office, which would refer Chandrasekar's (D6) address as No. 1, Park Road, Erode. No doubt, that address refers to the business address of Sarangapani. It is a fact that D6 worked as driver under Sarangapani and it is no wonder that such address is found specified therein. 26. As such, it is clear from the aforesaid documents filed on the side of the defendants that it was Sarangapani, who was running the business in the lorry transport business and nowhere, it is stated that Varadharaj or Chandrasekar ever associated themselves as co-owners of the said business. 27. Exhibit A-11 is the stamped letter dated 2.12.1967 written by Ponnurangan, the buyer of the lorry bearing No. MDU 4592 from Sarangapani and that would further strengthen the case of the plaintiff that it was Sarangapani, who had his own independent business and earning income out of it. 28. 27. Exhibit A-11 is the stamped letter dated 2.12.1967 written by Ponnurangan, the buyer of the lorry bearing No. MDU 4592 from Sarangapani and that would further strengthen the case of the plaintiff that it was Sarangapani, who had his own independent business and earning income out of it. 28. Even though the defendants whose burden is to prove that there had been income bearing joint family nucleus so as to enable Sarangapani to purchase the 3/4th share as per Exhibit A-2, nonetheless, the plaintiffs clearly and categorically adduced documentary evidence in addition to oral evidence that their propositus, viz., Sarangapani purchased the ¾th share of the suit properties from out of his own income by doing lorry business. 29. Exhibit A-3 is the letter sent by the Erode Municipality in favour of Sarangapani, which would reveal that it was Sarangapani who got the approval of the site and permission for raising construction as early as on 1.4.1972, so to say, during the life time of Sundaram Pillai, Nagammal and Sarangapani's brother Varadharaj, while they were all residing in Door No. 511, which refers to the ¼th share belonging to Nagammal. The Door No. 512 refers to the said ¾th share contemplated under Exhibit A-2. Chandrasekar, D.W.1 (D6), candidly and categorically admitted as under during cross examination. Over and above such admission by D.W.1 (D6), Exhibit A-2 itself would refer to two Door Nos. 511 and 512. As such, it is crystal clear that the said 3/4th share was bearing Old Door No. 512 and the 1/4th share belonging to Nagammal was bearing Old Door No. 511. While Sarangapani and his brothers were all staying in Door No. 511, to their knowledge Sarangapani demolished the building bearing Door No. 512 and raised new construction, after obtaining permission in his own name. These are all vital evidence, which would support the case of the plaintiffs that their propositus Sarangapani from out of his own income purchased the said 3/4th share as per Exhibit A-2 and after demolishing the old structure thereon, raised new structure from out of his own income. Had really Varadharaj and Chandrasekar had any right over it, certainly, they would have objected to it. Had really Varadharaj and Chandrasekar had any right over it, certainly, they would have objected to it. All these events took place in favour of Sarangapani and after keeping quite, the defendants have chosen to raise disputes by catching the wrong end of the stick after the death of Varadharaj in the year 1991 and file this suit. 30. Exhibit A-4 series (6 in number) would exemplify that Sarangapani paid house tax tor bis ¾th share bearing Door No. 512 in his own name during 1980's. Exhibit A-5 would reveal that Sarangapani paid house tax from 1988 to 1990 relating to the said 3/4th share, Exhibit A6 series (five in number), would also reveal that he paid water tax for his property during 1980's and subsequently also. 31. It is therefore clear that Sarangapani from out of his own lorry transport business income, purchased the % th share in the suit property as per Exhibit A-2 and after demolishing it raised construction and had been enjoying it as his own property with the requisite animus possidendi as owner and that too, to the knowledge of his parents and his brothers. In such a case, as an after thought, the defendants have chosen to dispute the absolute ownership of Sarangapani without any basis whatsoever. 32. No doubt, the plaintiffs could have straight away asked for partition of 3/4th share of the deceased Nagammal in the suit properties described in the schedule of the plaint and for mere declaration relating to the 3/4th share, which belonged to Sarangapani. However, they thought it fit to file the suit for partition and accordingly, the trial Court also ordered partition recognising the plaintiffs 3/4th share in the suit properties and also their respective share in the 1/4th share of the suit properties, which belonged to Nagammal as Sarangapani happened to be one of the children of Nagammal. However, they thought it fit to file the suit for partition and accordingly, the trial Court also ordered partition recognising the plaintiffs 3/4th share in the suit properties and also their respective share in the 1/4th share of the suit properties, which belonged to Nagammal as Sarangapani happened to be one of the children of Nagammal. In such a case, I could see, no infirmity in the judgment and depree of the trial Court and the trial Court is right in holding that the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of Sarangapani are entitled to the said 3/4th share in the property described in the schedule of the plaint and also they are entitled to 1/7th share in the 1/4th share of Nagammal in the property described in the schedule of the plaint as the plaintiffs propositus Sarangapani happened to be one of the seven children of Nagammal. 33. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is decided as against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. 34. Even though there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court nonetheless, while drafting the preliminary decree, it could have been drafted properly without leaving any scope for ambiguity. But, neither of the parties raised any doubt about the method and manner of having drafted the preliminary decree. Nonetheless, if any doubt arises in obtaining final decree and during execution the judgment of this Court holding the shares as above shall prevail and accordingly, it shall be implemented. Point No. 2: 35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no/ order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.