Arulanandasamy and the fist defendant and that was also admitted by the first defendant in reply notice and therefore, it cannot be contended by the first defendant that those properties are not available for partition. The learned counsel further submitted that though under Ex.A3, there was an agreement to divide the properties as stated therein, the first defendant also admitted that that document was not brought into effect and even as per Ex.A3, a partition deed has to be executed and registered by the parties and therefore, though the parties agreed to divide the properties under Ex.A3, it was not brought into effect by executing registered partition deed and therefore, the suit is not bad by reason of Ex.A3. The learned counsel further submitted that in respect of items 7 and 9 are concerned, it is the specific case of the first plaintiff that those properties are joint family properties of Arulanandasamy and Anthonisamy, the first defendant and though the first defendant claims that those properties were purchased under Exs.B14 and B15, the schedules mentioned in Exs.B14 and B15 would prove that only items 2, 3, 5 and 6 of B schedule were purchased in the name of the first defendant under those two documents, viz., Exs.B14 and B15 and items 7 and 9 were not purchased in the name of the first defendant and therefore, items 7 and 10 are liable for partition among the parties. It is further contended by the learned counsel that items 5, 6 and 7 were purchased under Exs.B14 and B15 the first defendant has not adduced any proof to show that he was having income and it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that both the brothers were doing business and admittedly, the lorries were purchased in the name of brothers from and out of the income of the parties and the properties were purchased in the name of the first defendant and therefore, the plaintiffs claim right over the same and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the decree.
