Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 14.06.1999 made in O.S. No. 35 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.

The plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed O.S. No. 35 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal for the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 2/10 shares in the property set out in the plaint schedule and for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to transfer 1,282 shares to the name of the first plaintiff and 1,283 shares to the 2nd plaintiff and also to pass a decree for account to the plaintiffs for the dividends received by him from the 5th defendant company from the date of death of Ahamed Maricar. The suit was decreed as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 have come forward with the present appeal. Pending appeal, the first defendant/first appellant died and his legal heirs were brought on record as appellants 6 to 9.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the court below.

3. The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sisters. The defendants 1 to 4 are brothers of the plaintiffs. The sixth defendant is the wife of the third defendant. The seventh defendant is the wife of the second defendant. The Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 are daughters and sons of Ahamed Maricar and Ummasalma Ammal. The father namely Ahamed Maricar died in the year 1983 and the mother also died intestate in the year 1990.

4. The Plaintiffs contended that their father purchased shares in the fifth defendant mill. On the death of their father, plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 inherited the properties owned by him as per Mohammadean Law and therefore each of the plaintiffs are entitled to a right in the properties owned by their father in the ratio of 1:2 as per the Mohammadean Law i.e., the daughters put together takes one share and sons put together takes two shares. Therefore, the defendants each entitled to ½ shares and the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5 shares. The defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to 8/10 shares and the plaintiffs together are entitled to 2/10 shares. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants 1 to 4 jointly applied to get succession certificate to transfer the shares standing in the name of their father in SOP No. 5 of 1991 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikal. By an order dated 112. 1991, the Court has granted succession certificate to all the petitioners, represented by the first defendant, who was the first petitioner in SOP No. 5 of 1991.

.5. It is contended by the plaintiffs that they bonafide believed that the first defendant will take necessary steps to get the shares transferred in their name in proportion to their rights. The plaintiffs were awaiting to hear from the defendants 1 and 5. Since nothing is forthcoming for a long time, the plaintiffs asked the first defendant to have the shares transferred in the name of the respective sharers as per law. In such circumstances, dispute arose between the parties and the first defendant attempted to transfer the shares in his own name. Therefore, on 011. 1994, the plaintiffs sent a notice to the fifth defendant company calling upon them not to transfer the shares in favour of the first defendant. The fifth defendant sent a reply dated 112. 1994 stating that they are proceeding to transfer the shares in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4, but later on, the fifth defendant, by a letter dated 06.03.1995 indicated that they are going to transfer the shares in the name of the first defendant, in pursuance of the modified order passed in the succession certificate proceedings. According to the plaintiffs, they were not made parties to the proceedings in which the order passed in the succession certificate was modified in the nam