Mrs.R.Banumathi, J.: All the four appeals arise out of the common judgment in O.S.No.5 of 1979 (dated 28.12.1983) on the file of Sub Court, Pattukkottai.

2. Details of all the four appeals are as under:

Suit No.

(1) Decree

(2) Appeal No.

(3) Appellant

(4)

O.S. No.5 of 1979 Suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s1/5th share - Sch.I to III - 1/4th share in Sch. IV and V or alternative relief of 4/32 shares in Sch.I to III Plaintiff is entitled to 14/104 shares - 48 cents in Item 4, entire extent in Items 6 and 11 of Sch. I, Items 10 to 20, 37, 38, 40 to 42 and 45 in Sch. II and Items 2 to 18, 20, 21, 23 and 27 to 29 in Sch.III 390 of 1985 plaintiff

O.S. No. 5 of 1979 —— A.S. No.399 of 1985 3rd defendant

O.S. No. 5 of 1979 —— A.S. No.936 of 1985 2nd defendatn regarding Sch. V with reference to machineries

O.S. No. 109 of 1980 - Suit for declaration that the Promissory Note dated 26.3.1966 is not enforceable and for recovery of possession of Victoria Printing Press and for recovery of rent D18 to deliver vacant possession fo Victoria Press and Buildings to D4 - Mohammed Yusuf. D18 to pay Rs.3,630 with subsequent interest.. Transferred A.S.No.657 of 1988 D18 Balasubramaniam

O.S. No. 252 of 1980 suit for recovery of Rs. 4,260 on promissory note. Suit decreed against D4 - MOhammed Yusuf. No appeal ——

3. In all the suits, common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.5 of 1979. All these four appeals arise out of the common judgment in O.S.No.5 of 1979. Since the parties in all the appeals are one and the same and common points arise for determination, all the appeals are disposed of by the common judgment. Since O.S.No.5 of 1979 is the comprehensive suit, parties would be referred as in their rank in O.S.No.5 of 1979.

4. For better appreciation of contentious points, it is necessary to have an understanding of the relationship of the parties. Genealogy of D1-Sekkadi Rowther is under:

5. Suit properties relate to I to VI Schedule - Schedule I comprising of 11 items; Schedule II, 45 items; Schedule III, 29 items; Schedule IV, one item Survey No.489/106 (said to have been purchased by D1 in the name of D8); Schedule V one item Survey No.489/114 and Victoria Press (said to be run by the family). Schedule VI contains description of certain impugned documents - sale deeds and settlement deeds.

6. Case of the plaintiff is that his maternal grand father M.S.Amir Moideen was doing grocery and money lending business and that he earned lot of money and purchased several properties in Mudukkur and Vikramam villages. Since M.S.Amir Moideen had no male issue, he bequeathed his properties in favour of D1 and his two elder brothers and D6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said M.S.Amir Moideen also purchased some properties which are mentioned in plaint Schedule I to III in the name of D1 benami. However, intending to bequeath all his properties, the said M.S.Amir Moideen executed a registered Will (Ex.A-1) on 23.6.1940 bequeathing his property to them. M.S.Amir Moideen died on 15.3.1945 and the Will came into force from that date. After the death of M.S.Amir Moideen D1 was managing the entire estate of M.S.Amir Moideen, assisted by the plaintiff and his brothers. As per Ex.B-2, a partial partition was effected on 1.7.1957 between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 in which some properties were given to D3 and rest of the properties were retained by the plaintiff and his brothers. Some properties were left undivided to be divided later on. In 1961, D4 filed a partition suit in O.S.No.19 of 1961 on the file of the District Court, Thanjavur in respect of those properties which were not included in O.S.No.19 of 1961. Only decree for partial partition was passed in O.s.No.19 of 1961 (Ex.A-23 judgment). Thus properties under the plaint schedule I to III were purchased benami in the name of D1 from out of the funds of the estate of M.S.Amir Moideen. Schedule IV was purchased by D1 from out of the income of other suit items in the na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document