The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of equity in partitioning joint properties and the rights of third-party purchasers of undivided shares.

1. These two second appeals are focussed by the original plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif Court at Uthiramerur in O.S.No.69 of 2006 and also as against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 in A.S.No.20 of 2010 by the same appellate Judge modifying the judgment and decree of the Munsif Court in O.S.No.97 of 2006. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two Second Appeals would run thus:

(a) The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.69 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To pass a decree for specific performance directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to execute and register a sale deed with regard to the schedule of property in favour of plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.39,000/- within a time to be specified by this Court, failing which, the sale deed to be executed through process of court at the expense of the plaintiff and the same will be recovered later from the defendants.

(ii) To grant permanent injunction against the 1st and 2nd defendants and his men or agents from in any way alienating or encumbrance in the suit property till the disposed of the suit; and

(iii) for costs.(Extracted as such)

(b) The plaintiffs/R1 to R3 herein in S.A.No.1567 of 2010 filed O.S.No.97 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To grant a preliminary decree for partition of half share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties morefully described in the schedule hereunder by dividing the same into two equal halves;

(ii) to pass a final decree in pursuance of the Prel.Decree that may be passed in the above suit by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, under order 26 Rule 13 and 14 CPC to divide the properties into two equal halves and allot one such share to the plaintiffs, by metes and bounds and according to good and bad soil, to have separate partition of the joint family properties in favour of the plaintiffs and separate possession be delivered to the plaintiffs; and

(ii) for costs.(Extracted as such)

(c) The respective defendants filed separate written statements resisting the suits.

(d) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(e) Separate trials were conducted. In the specific performance suit, i.e. O.S.No.69 of 2006, the plaintiff-Narayanan examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2-Sahadevan and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined.

(f) In the partition suit, i.e. O.S.No.97 of 2006, the second and the first plaintiff, namely, Kala and Alamelu examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.W.3-Rani and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. The fourth defendant-Narayanan examined himself as

D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

(g) The trial Court disposed of both the suits by separate judgments. The suit for partition (O.S.No.97 of 2006) was ordered allotting half share in favour of the plaintiffs, who happened to be the three daughters of deceased Jayaraman, the propositus concerned in this case and the remaining half share was allotted in favour of D1 - the wife and D2 and D3 the sons of deceased Jayaraman. D4 is the agreement holder in respect of the item number 10 of the suit properties, under the agreement to sell which emerged between D2 and D3 as proposed sellers and D4 as proposed purchaser.

(h) The trial Court also granted decree of specific performance (O.S.No.69 of 2006) in favour of D4 in respect of the said 10th item.

(i) The defendants in the specific performance suit O.S.No.69 of 2006 preferred A.S.No.50 of 2009 and the plaintiffs in the partition suit O.S.No.97 of 2006 filed another appeal A.S.No.20 of 2010. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by separate judgments. The appellate Court i