1. The second appeal and the cross-objection are focussed by the plaintiff and D26, respectively, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 24.1.2008 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.No.251 of 2006 reversing the judgement and decree dated 23.10.2002 passed by the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.12148 of 1989, which was filed for partition.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(a) The appellant herein, as plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"To pass a judgement and decree against the defendants:

(1) directing division of the suit property into twelve equal shares by metes and bounds;

(2) for allotment of separate possession of 11 shares to the plaintiff;

(3) directing 1/12th share of the 1st defendant over the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.1273/- and 1/3 under section 9 of the Partition Act;

(4) for appointment of a Commissioner to effect partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and for sale of the 1/12th share of the 1st defendant to the plaintiff;

(5) for costs of the suit." (extracted as such)

(b) Written statements were filed separately by D1 , D2 and D3, D4 to D7, D23, D24 and D26 resisting the suit. Whereupon, the trial Court framed the issues.

(c) The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked. On the defendants side, D26 and D22 examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 along with D.W.3 and marked Exs.B1 to B11.

(d) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to 11/12th share and the deceased D1-Arumugham was entitled to 1/12th share, in the suit properties.

(e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, D26-the biological son of D1, filed the appeal. Whereupon, the first appellate Court reversed the judgement and decree of the trial Court and allotted half share to the plaintiff and half share to the deceased D1 and correspondingly, the legal heirs of D1 were allowed to get the share of the deceased D1.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgement and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff filed the second appeal on various grounds, suggesting the following substantial questions of law.

"(1) Has not the first appellate Court erred in partly reversing the decree of the trial Court by holding that Shanmuga Sundaram is absolute owner of the property, when the respondents/defendants have not filed any documentary evidence to prove the same?

(2) Has not the first appellate Court erred in granting a relief merely basing on Ex.B1 the Certified copy of Charge decree said to have executed by the deceased Shanmuga Sundaram in which other co-owners are not parties?

(3) Has not the first appellate Court erred in reversing decree passed by the trial Court by over looking Ex.A5 and A6 the Release Deed executed by other co-owners in favour of the appellant by relinquishing their share?

(4) Has not the first appellate Court erred in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court over looking the principle that possession by one co-owner shall deemed joint possession by the other co-owners?"

(extracted as such)

5. Whereas, D26 filed the cross-appeal challenging the lower Courts' finding, which was to the effect he was not the adopted son of Rathinasabapathy. However, D26 would contend that he is the adopted son of the plaintiff-Rathinasabapathy.

6. At this juncture, I would like to point out that earlier, the second appeal papers were got misplaced and they could not be traced. Whereupon my learned predecessor ordered for reconstruction and it is before me along with the original lower Court's records which are intact.

7. On both sides, they would state that certain substantial questions