Judgment :- 1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have projected the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.1998 in A.S.No.105 of 1996 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.1996 in O.S.No.164 of 1996 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.105 of 1996 (filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs), has inter alia opined that ?PW1 (2nd Plaintiff) in his evidence has admitted that he knows about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.222 of 1980 after filing of the said case and no value can be given to the case of the Plaintiff that they do not know about the fifteen years case against the 1st Defendant and a natural question that arises is that as to why no action has been taken and further, after the 2nd Defendant obtaining possession of the property through Court, another question that crops up is that as to why the Plaintiffs in that suit have not taken legal action and further held that after purchase made by the 2nd Defendant for 19 years, no action has been taken and later during the year 1996, the suit has been filed in which there is no bona fide intention or justifiable reason and accordingly, the dismissal of the suit made by the trial Court is correct and consequently, dismissed the Appeal with costs, thereby, affirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit.” 3. In the main suit, during trial, 1 to 3 Issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the Appellants/Plaintiffs, witnesses PW1 and PW2 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, witness DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14 have been marked. 4. In the main suit, during trial, 1 to 3 Issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the Appellants/Plaintiffs, witnesses PW1 and PW2 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, witness DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14 have been marked. 4. The trial Court, on an appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a resultant conclusion that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have not filed the present suit with bona fide intention and have suppressed the true facts and in fact, they have included the other properties along with Survey No.330/4 property and in between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant as regards the Partition of the suit properties, there is no dispute and to injunct the 2nd Defendant in whose enjoyment the Survey No.330/4 is there, the 1st Defendant has joined with other Plaintiffs and have projected the suit not with bona fide intention and other than Survey No.330/4 in other properties and in respect of other properties, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any relief and resultantly, dismissed the suit with costs. 5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law for determination. “(1) Whether the Courts below have failed to consider that the alienation by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant, in excess of his rightful entitlement to the Hindu joint family properties, is invalid and not binding on the Plaintiffs and they are not entitled to ignore the same and seek for Partition and separate possession of their share in the joint family properties? (2) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit for Partition in its entirety, even with regard to the undisputed joint family properties and also without reference to the invalid sale by the 1st Defendant in excess of his legal entitlement to the suit joint family properties which is not binding on the Plaintiffs?” 6. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law No.1 and 2: The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed an error in dismissing the suit of the Appellants/Plaintiffs for Partition and separate possession in toto. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law No.1 and 2: The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed an error in dismissing the suit of the Appellants/Plaintiffs for Partition and separate possession in toto. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the suit property being Hindu joint family properties, the Appellants/Plaintiffs are entitled to 41/49 share and this fact has not been taken note of by the Courts below, which has resulted in wrong Judgment being delivered against the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 7. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate that the alienation by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in respect of a major portion of the suit properties is invalid in law and not binding on the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has no right to sell any portion in excess of his entitlement to the joint family properties. 8. The plea of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is that notwithstanding the invalidity of the sale in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant, the Appellants/Plaintiffs continued to be in uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit properties for well over the statutory period, adverse to any rights of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in the same. 9. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has no right to alienate any property in excess of his share in Survey No.330/4 and the said alienation in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is not binding on the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 10. 9. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has no right to alienate any property in excess of his share in Survey No.330/4 and the said alienation in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is not binding on the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 10. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has remained Ex parte in the main suit and has been called absent before the First Appellate Court and also, before this Court and further, it is the plea of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that the present suit has been filed by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant in collusion with the other Appellants/Plaintiffs and that the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is interested only in the suit Survey No.340/4 of 1.52.5 Hectares and this property in its entirety belongs to the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant, he having purchased the same under Court Sale and obtained possession through Court. 11. According to the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant, the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is not concerned with the other suit properties except suit Survey No.340/4 of 1.52.5 Hectares and as a matter of fact, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and the Appellants/Plaintiffs have been residing separately, cooking separately and enjoying the property separately. Moreover, there has been a division between the two groups of the first wife's son on the one hand and the second wife and her children on the other for a long time. 12. Moreover, there has been a division between the two groups of the first wife's son on the one hand and the second wife and her children on the other for a long time. 12. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant submits that the trial Court in its judgment in the main suit has clearly observed that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have not filed O.S.No.164 of 1996 with bona fide intention and also, it has been found that in fact, there is no controversy between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant in regard to the Partition of the suit properties and only to restrain the enjoyment of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in respect of the suit Survey No.330/4, the suit has been filed and apart from that, the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.105 of 1996 (filed by the Appellants/ Plaintiffs) in its Judgment has clearly held that the defeated 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has instigated the Appellants/Plaintiffs to file the present suit and after purchase of property by the 2nd Defendant for 19 years, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have remained quiet and only during the year 1996, the case has been filed by them and there is no justiciable reason or bona fide intention to file the suit and accordingly, rejected the Appeal with costs, which need not be interfered with by this Court in Second Appeal. 13. The Appellants/Plaintiffs, in the Plaint, have averred that the suit properties have been purchased by one Venkatamma, grand mother of the Appellants/Plaintiffs 2 to 6 and the mother in law of the 1st Appellant/1st Plaintiff by means of Sale Deed dated 20.01.1940 and she has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same till her death. Subsequent to her demise, her only son Kariyappa @ Thambikhan succeeded to the suit properties as he has been in enjoyment till his death. The Appellants/Plaintiffs 2 to 6 have other brother namely the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, Son of the 1st Plaintiff and her husband Kariyappa @ Thambikhan. The suit properties are the joint family properties by the deceased Samugan and his children who constituted a joint Hindu family. Out of the joint exertion and the efforts of the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, the suit properties have been improved, after the demise of her Kariyappa @ Thambikhan. 14. The suit properties are the joint family properties by the deceased Samugan and his children who constituted a joint Hindu family. Out of the joint exertion and the efforts of the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, the suit properties have been improved, after the demise of her Kariyappa @ Thambikhan. 14. The 1st Appellant/1st Plaintiff (Widow), the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and the Appellants/Plaintiffs 2 to 6, the male children of the said Kariyappa @ Thambikhan have succeeded to his properties. They have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties. Patta has been granted by the Government in the Appellants/Plaintiffs 2 to 6 and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant's name. They have been paying the kist to the Government. The suit properties are in common enjoyment by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and the Appellants/ Plaintiffs. The 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has executed a document in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant. The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant sold about the four acres of land though he has no right to sell the so much of land about ten years ago. The said sale can never bind the others much less the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 15. The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has got no right on the basis of alleged sale deed obtained from the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. He has lost all of his rights by the long and uninterpreted and peaceful adverse possession of the Appellants/Plaintiff for well over the statutory period. They have perfected their title by adverse possession. Even otherwise the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has got only share in the suit properties. He cannot claim absolute right in all the suit properties of the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The alleged sale in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in respect of four acres of lands is in excess of the share of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant's share and the same cannot bind the Appellants/Plaintiffs right insofar as they are concerned. The said sale in excess of the Appellants/Plaintiffs share in the suit properties is null and void and is not binding on the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 16. The Appellants/Plaintiffs are entitled to have the division of the suit properties and allotment of 41/49 share in the suit properties and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is bound to divide the same in respect of good and bad soil by metes and bounds and give the same to the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant cannot trespass into the suit properties. The Appellants/Plaintiffs are entitled to have the division of the suit properties and allotment of 41/49 share in the suit properties and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is bound to divide the same in respect of good and bad soil by metes and bounds and give the same to the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant cannot trespass into the suit properties. Therefore, he is to be restrained by means of an injunction and as such, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the suit praying for the relief of Partition, by dividing the suit properties into 41/49 share and for issuance of direction to the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant to divide the same by metes and bounds in regard to the good and bad soil and allot one such share to them and also prayed for the relief of injunction against the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant from alienating the Appellants/Plaintiffs share in the suit properties. 17. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant on 12.01.1977 has sold the land in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in Survey No.330/4 measuring an extent of 1.52.5 Hectares and after the sale, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has not handed over possession and created a problem and the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has been perforced to file a suit O.S.No.222 of 1980 against the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and obtained a Decree on 27.01.1987. As against the said Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.222 of 1980, dated 27.01.1987, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has projected A.S.No.43 of 1990 on the file of the First Appellate Court and after contest, the said Appeal has been dismissed on 10.01.1992. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant through Court has taken steps for the delivery of the property and with the Police aid, the possession has been delivered to the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in R.E.P.No.46 of 1992 on 22.11.1994. The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has an exclusive right and title in interest in Survey No.330/4, measuring an extent of 1.52.5 Hectares and the present suit O.S.No.164 of 1996 (earlier O.S.No.416 of 1993) is filed as an after thought which has no bona fide and indeed, the Appellants/Plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the genuiness of the Court Proceedings, which bind them in law. 18. 18. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that the Appellants/Plaintiffs or the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant have no possession of the suit land Survey No.330/4 and the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has improved the property and personally, he is cultivating the same and enjoying also. Added further, in regard to the earlier dispute in O.S.No.222 of 1980, the Appellants/Plaintiffs are aware of the Court Proceedings and the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has no objection to the Appellants/Plaintiffs in regard to their claim and other properties, because of the fact that he has not interested in other properties except the Survey No.330/4, which is purchased by means of Sale Deed dated 12.01.1977, measuring an extent of 1.52.5 Hectares. 19. In short, it is the specific stand of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that he is in legal and physical possession of Survey No.330/4, measuring an extent of 1.52.5 Hectares. 20. PW1 (2nd Plaintiff) in his evidence has deposed that the 1st Appellant/1st Plaintiff is his mother and 3 to 6 Appellants/Plaintiffs are his brothers and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is his elder brother and the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is a third party, who has not related and his father Kariyappa @ Thambikhan has two wives and his mother is the second wife and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant's mother is his father's first wife and the suit properties belongs to his grandmother, who is purchased the same in the year 1940, as per Ex.A.1 Sale Deed and after the demise of his grandmother, his father has inherited the said property and 30 years have elapsed from the date of death of his father and after the demise of his father, they have been in enjoyment of the suit properties and that the suit properties belonged to the joint family. 21. It is the further evidence of PW1 that the suit properties have not been partitioned and in respect of the suit properties, patta has been changed and the land tax have been paid by them and in the land, no one has got a separate interest and the factum of sale effected by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, to and in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has been known to them, at the time of taking possession through Court and before that, they do not know about the same. 22. 22. The evidence of PW1 is also to the effect that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is not coming to the land for the past 20 years and he is a drunkard and he (2nd Plaintiff) is in possession of the land for 20 years. 23. Added further, PW1 in his cross examination has deposed that he has not enquired whether any decree has been passed in favour of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant and he does not know about the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant filing a case against the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and obtained a decree and also got possession of the property through Court and moreover, he does not know about the Survey Number and that he is not a literate person and at the time of filing of the suit, he does not know about the Survey Numbers and also he does not know about the extent of Survey Numbers and also, the four boundaries thereof. 24. The evidence of PW2 proceeds to the effect that he does not know as to where the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is residing and he does not know where the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has taken possession of the properties in Survey No.330/4 through Court and he does not know about the four boundaries in respect of the suit property and also, he does not know about the grant of U.D.R. Patta. 25. DW1 in his evidence (2nd Respondent) has deposed that he has purchased the land from the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant 20 years before and that the property has been shown as third item in the suit properties and since the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has not handed over possession of the properties sold, he has filed a case in which he has a favour Decree, has been passed in his favour and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant preferred A.S.No.43 of 1990 before the District Court and later, he has taken possession of the property through Court and he has no objection in regard to the other properties except the third item of property. 26. 26. DW1 (in his cross examination) has deposed that it is not correct to state that the suit properties are the joint family of Appellants/ Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and 40 years ago, Partition has taken place for which no documents have been filed and that the five Plaintiffs have separate lands but, he has not filed any documents to prove the separate lands in other possession. 27. Ex.A.1 is the Patta Sale Deed, dated 20.01.1940, executed in favour of Venkatamma by H.Narasimhacha. Ex.A.2 is the UDR Patta bearing No.18, issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu in favour of Munusamy, S/o.Kariyan @ Thambikhan. A perusal of Ex.A.2 UDR Patta shows that it relates to Survey Nos.330/2 Punja land measuring 0.02.0, 330/4 Punja land measuring 1.52.5, 349/4 Punja land measuring 0.70.0 and 350/3 Punja land measuring 1.09.5 and also, it is mentioned in Tamil as ‘TAMIL' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession). 28. Ex.A.3 is the UDR Patta bearing No.18, stands in the name of Chinna Munusamy and it is mentioned in Tamil as ‘TAMIL' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession), covering Survey Nos.330/2 Punja land measuring 0.02.0, 330/4 Punja land measuring 1.52.5, 349/4 Punja land measuring 0.70.0 and 350/3 Punja land measuring 1.09.5. 29. Ex.A.4 is the UDR Patta bearing No.18, stands in the name of Thandavan in respect of Survey Nos.330/2 Punja land measuring 0.02.0, 330/4 Punja land measuring 1.52.5, 349/4 Punja land measuring 0.70.0 and 350/3 Punja land measuring 1.09.5 and also, it is mentioned in Tamil as ‘TAMIL' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession). 30. Ex.A.5 is the UDR Patta bearing No.18, stands in the name of Koothappan in respect of Survey Nos.330/2 Punja land measuring 0.02.0, 330/4 Punja land measuring 1.52.5, 349/4 Punja land measuring 0.70.0 and 350/3 Punja land measuring 1.09.5 and also, it is mentioned in Tamil as ‘TAMIL' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession). 31. Ex.A.6 is the UDR Patta bearing No.18, stands in the name of Samukhan in respect of Survey Nos.330/2 Punja land measuring 0.02.0, 330/4 Punja land measuring 1.52.5, 349/4 Punja land measuring 0.70.0 and 350/3 Punja land measuring 1.09.5 and also, it is mentioned in Tamil as ‘TAMIL' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession). 32. 31. Ex.A.6 is the UDR Patta bearing No.18, stands in the name of Samukhan in respect of Survey Nos.330/2 Punja land measuring 0.02.0, 330/4 Punja land measuring 1.52.5, 349/4 Punja land measuring 0.70.0 and 350/3 Punja land measuring 1.09.5 and also, it is mentioned in Tamil as ‘TAMIL' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession). 32. Ex.A.7 is the UDR Patta bearing No.18, stands in the name of Erakhan in respect of Survey Nos.330/2 Punja land measuring 0.02.0, 330/4 Punja land measuring 1.52.5, 349/4 Punja land measuring 0.70.0 and 350/3 Punja land measuring 1.09.5 and also, it is mentioned in Tamil as ‘TAMIL' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession). 33. In all Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.7 UDR Pattas stand in different persons name. It is mentioned as acquired by Partition through ‘TAMIL'. 34. Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of Decree delivery receipt in R.E.P.No.46 of 92 in O.S.No.222 of 1980 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Hosur. Ex.B.2 is the certified copy of bailiff warrant and report, dated 27.08.1993. 35. Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of order in I.A.No.421 of 1987 (in O.S.No.222 of 1980) on the file of the Learned District, Munsif, Hosur. Ex.B.4 is the Decretal Order, dated 12.11.1990, passed in I.A.No.421 of 1987 (in O.S.No.222 of 1980) on the file of the Learned District, Munsif, Hosur. Ex.B.5 to Ex.B.14 are the Revenue Receipts paid by the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant. 36. In the present case on hand, as seen from Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.7, UDR Pattas and also, the fact remains that except Survey No.330/4, measuring 1.52.5 in respect of other suit items of properties, there is no dispute between the parties in respect of the other items of Plaint schedule properties. In the Plaint, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have given four schedules of properties and though Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.7 UDR Pattas are not title deeds, yet prima facie they are documents to be taken note of/to be considered, to show the one's enjoyment of the properties. 37. In the Plaint, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have given four schedules of properties and though Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.7 UDR Pattas are not title deeds, yet prima facie they are documents to be taken note of/to be considered, to show the one's enjoyment of the properties. 37. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs submits that the Appellants/Plaintiffs' name have been mentioned in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.7 UDR Pattas to show their enjoyment of the properties jointly, it is to be pointed out that though the Appellants/Plaintiffs traced their title to the suit properties as per Ex.A.1 Sale Deed dated 20.01.1940, yet this Court is of the considered view that the very fact that in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.7 Pattas, the individual pattatar's name find a place, this Court is of the considered view that they have been in possession of the properties separately and in these Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.7 UDR Pattas, it is further mentioned in Tamil as 'Y/X{Vt]U TtLm'' (Partition acquired by means of Hereditary/Descendent Succession) and there is no document being filed before the trial Court to show that Partition has taken place between the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, yet it is the case of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that Partition has taken place in the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant's family 40 years ago. Conveniently, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has remained ex parte in the Original Suit in O.S.No.164 of 1996 filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs before the trial Court. Even in Appellate Court in A.S.No.105 of 1996, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has been called absent. Even in Second Appeal, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has been served and not appeared before this Court. The 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has obviously given his patta to the other Plaintiffs so as to enable them to file a case against himself and the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant, who has purchased 1.52.5 Hectares of lands in Survey No.330/4. 38. In the instant case, as per Ex.A.1 Sale Deed, the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant are the heirs of Venkatamma. 38. In the instant case, as per Ex.A.1 Sale Deed, the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant are the heirs of Venkatamma. It is not disputed that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has sold the Survey No.330/4, measuring 1.52.5 Hectares of lands to the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant on 12.01.1977 and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant after selling the Survey No.330/4, has not handed over possession to the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant and later, the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has been perforced to file O.S.No.222 of 1980 and has obtained a decree against the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant on 12.11.1990. Through Court only, the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has taken possession of the Survey No.330/4, measuring 1.52.5 Hectares. Nearly for 14, 15 years, after filing of O.S.No.222 of 1980 by the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant against the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant the possession of Survey No.330/4 has been taken by the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant. Nearly after 19 years of purchase made by the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in respect of Survey No.330/4, measuring 1.52.5 Hectares, the suit O.S.No.164 of 1996 has been filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. 39. Earlier, the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has not filed a suit for Partition. The First Appellate Court in its Judgment in Para 8 has observed that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have been instigated by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant after he lost the case in O.S.No.222 of 1980. As a matter of fact, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have not taken any diligent action immediately till they filed a suit in O.S.No.164 of 1996 on the file of the trial Court praying for the relief of Partition by including the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant as one of the parties to the proceedings, besides adding the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs have suppressed the fact in the Plaint that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is the son of Kariyappa's first wife. Only because the Appellants/Plaintiffs have been in enjoyment of the properties separately and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant have been residing separately, cooking separately and enjoying the properties separately. 40. The plea of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that there has been a division between the two groups of the 1st wife's son on one hand and the second wife and her children on the other for a long time, is worthy of acceptance. 40. The plea of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that there has been a division between the two groups of the 1st wife's son on one hand and the second wife and her children on the other for a long time, is worthy of acceptance. In the instant case on hand, it is not established to the satisfaction of this Court on behalf of the Appellants/ Plaintiffs that the suit properties have been purchased out of the joint exertion of the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. Also, the stand has been taken on behalf of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant that joint patta does not create any exclusive right for the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 41. As per Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, the High Court's scope for interference with concurrent findings of the Court while exercising jurisdiction is indeed very limited. An appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code can be entertained by High Court only on a Substantial Question of Law. However, if the finding of the subordinate Courts on facts are contrary to the evidence on record and are perverse, such a finding can be set aside by the High Court in an Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 42. As a rule, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Second Appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding on fact, however, gross or inexcusable the error may appear to be or as a rule in Second Appeal, finding of fact should not be disturbed. However, if they are based on no evidence or in disregard of evidence or on inadmissible evidence or against the basic principles of law or on the face of it, there appears an error of law or procedure or when there is a vast divergence between the pleadings and proof, such findings can be interfered with, as opined by this Court. 43. 43. In view of the aforesaid reasons and taking note of the fact that they appears to be some division between the two groups of first wife of his son on one hand and the second wife and children on the other for a long time and also that the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and the Appellants/Plaintiffs have been residing separately, cooking separately and enjoying the property separately, this comes to an irresistible and inevitable conclusion that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have not established to the satisfaction of this Court that they have been in enjoyment of the suit properties commonly by them with the 1st Defendant and also that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have remained silent for nearly 16 years after filing of O.S.No.222 of 1980 by the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant and also, it appears that the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has purchased the suit Survey No.330/4, measuring 1.52.5 Hectares, as early as on 12.01.1977 and taking an over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court holds that both the Courts have rightly rendered a pure finding of fact that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have not projected the O.S.No.164 of 1996 on the file of the trial Court in a bone fide and in a justiciable manner and consequently, dismissed the suit and Appeal in a proper way and it is not open to the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant to attack the purchase of property made by the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in respect of Survey No.330/4 after a long and inordinate delay of nearly 19 years and looking at from any point of view, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.164 of 1996 as well as the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.105 of 1996 are based on pure concurrent findings of fact and they do not require any interference in the hands of this Court because of the fact they do not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality. Viewed in that perspective, both the Substantial Questions of Law are answered against the Appellants/ Defendants. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Viewed in that perspective, both the Substantial Questions of Law are answered against the Appellants/ Defendants. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur in O.S.No.164 of 1996, dated 12.09.1996, as well as the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in A.S.No.105 of 1996, dated 31.03.1998, are affirmed by this Court for the reasons ascribed in this Appeal.