On the basis of established facts of the case Court can grant relief.

Srinivasan, J.

1. The properties involved in both the suits, out of which these appeals arise, belonged originally to one Vazhithunai Mudaliar. Though there was a controversy in the Court below whether the properties belonged to him absolutely as his self acquired properties or his joint family properties, that controversy is not present in this Court. It is now admitted on all hands that the properties belonged absolutely to Vazhithunai Mudaliar. He died on 18.12.1948 leaving a will dated 15.3.1944 marked as Ex.B.43. He had a wife by name Kanniammal, four daughters, namely, Nagarathinammal, Kanakavalli Ammal, Indirani Ammal and Kanakammal and a son by name kanniappa. Kanniappa died on 3.4.1963 leaving a widow by name Muniammal. Nagarathinammal had two sons, Madhavan and Vasudevan. The appellant in both the appeals is the said Madhavan. It is not necessary to refer to the other members of the family for the purpose of these two appeals.

2. Kanniammal, the wife of Vazhithunai Mudaliar, filed a suit in O.S. No. 4 of 1969 for partition and separate possession of her 3/4th share in the properties left by her husband claiming that she was entitled to one half share on the death of her husband and got another one fourth share on the death of her son. That suit was contested by her daughter-in-law, Muniammal. That ended in a compromise where-by certain properties were allotted to Kanniammal and certain other properties were allotted to Muniammal. Thereafter, Muniammal filed O.S. No. 10 of 1965 for a declaration of title of herself and that of her mother-in-law Kanniammal to the plaint-schedule properties and for an injunction restraining defendants 2 to 6 from interfering with their possession. The second defendant was Nagarathinammal. The third defendant was her husband. Defendants 4 to 6 were her sons. When that suit was pending, Kanniammal filed O.S. No. 62 of 1971 for a declaration of her title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. The defendants in that suit were Nagarathinammal and her sons and alieness from them. Muniammal filed another, suit in O.S. No. 63 of 1971 against Nagarathinammal, her sons and two other for a declaration of her right to the suit properties and for an injunction. In O.S.62 of 1971, Kanniammal, had claimed damages on the ground that the defendants had unlawfully removed, the produce from the land. In O.S. No. 63 of 1971, Muniammal had claimed damages in a sum of Rs. 7,000 on the ground that the 4th and 5th defendants had cut and carried away trees worth Rs. 2,000 and the other defendants had removed the produce from the land worth about Rs. 5,000.

3. All the three suits and a fourth suit filed by a lessee were tried together. The trial Court held that the will executed by Vazhithunai Mudaliar was genuine and valid. However, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in the suit as they had traced their title not to the will of Vazhithunai Mudaliar, but to a partition effected by kanniappa during his lifetime on 25.2.1963. It has to be pointed out at this stage that the plaintiffs claimed in the plaint that the properties were joint family properties of Vazhithunai Mudaliar and Kanniappa and after the death of Vazhithunai Mudaliar, Kanniappa had effected a partition between himself and his mother on 25.2.1963 and the suit properties were allotted to the mother in that partition. It was also claimed by Muniammal that she became one of the heirs of kanniappa and obtained the suit properties. The Trial Court took the view that the plaintiffs could not get a decree because they had made a claim only on the footing that the properties were joint family properties and that the properties were allotted to them in the partition dated 25.2.1963 effected by Kanniappa.

4. There were three appeals to the District Court, Chengalpattu. The learned District Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court that Ex.B.4