The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the proof of adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the application of the bar under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a suit for partition based on the same cause of action.

1. Defendants 3, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore are the appellants.

2. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition of his 4/6 share in the suit properties. The suit was decreed and the appeal filed in A.S.No.55 of 2006 filed by the defendants and the cross objection filed by the first respondent were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed by defendants 3, 6 and 7. The first respondent also filed cross objection No.143 of 2011 against the dismissal of the cross objection filed by him in A.S.No.55 of 2011.

3. The case of the first respondent was that the suit properties were the ancestral properties of one Krishnan Chettiar and Pappammal was his wife who was the first defendant in the suit and they had a daughter by name Saraswathi and defendants 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of Saraswathi. The first defendant and the plaintiff/first respondent's mother Muthammal were sisters and the first respondent herein was taken in adoption by Krishnan Chettiar and Pappammal when the first respondent/plaintiff was three months old and he was treated as adopted son of Krishnan Chettiar and Pappammal and therefore, he is entitled to half share in the suit properties and after the death of Krishnan Chettiar, he is entitled to 1/6 share alongwith the defendants and the first defendant was entitled to 1/6 share and defendants 2 to 7 together are entitled to 1/6 share and after the death of the first defendant, he became entitled to 1/12 share and therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 + 1/6 + 1/12 = 9/12 share and the suit was filed for that.

4. The first defendant Pappammal filed statement disputing the claim of the first respondent/plaintiff herein as the adopted son of Krishnan Chettiar and Pappammal and denied that the plaintiff/first respondent was the adopted son and therefore, he is not entitled to any share in the properties of Krishnan Chettiar and Krishnan Chettiar, during his life time, settled his properties in favour of his daughter Saraswathi and therefore, the plaintiff/first respondent cannot claim any right over the properties and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of partition.

5. The plaintiff/first respondent examined five witnesses to prove his case of adoption and marked 41 documents as Exhibits and the appellant examined three witnesses and marked 17 Exhibits. The Trial Court, on the basis of Ex.A8, registered Will dated 24.6.1975 and various documents wherein the first respondent/plaintiff was described as son of Krishnan Chettiar and also having regard to the evidence of PW3, held that the plaintiff/first respondent proved that he was the adopted son of Krishnan Chettiar and therefore, he is entitled to claim share in the suit properties. Further, the Trial Court upheld the settlement deeds executed by Krishnan Chettiar in favour of his daughter and held that after the execution of the settlement deed in respect of those properties, the plaintiff cannot claim any share and therefore, the plaintiff/first respondent is entitled to claim only half share in the property.

6. In the first appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2006, the first respondent filed cross objection and contended that the settlement deeds, Exs.B6 and B7 were not proved and during the life time of Krishnan Chettiar, he was not in sound state of mind and therefore, Saraswathi, daughter of Krishnan Chettiar cannot claim any right over those properties and therefore, Krishnan Chettiar died intestate in respect of his half share in the property and the half share of Krishnan Chettiar devolved on the plaintiff/first respondent, his widow Pappammal viz., the first defendant and the legal heirs of his daughter Saraswathi and therefore, he is entitled to 3/4 share in the property. The lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court holding that the first respondent/plaintiff proved that he was the adopted son of Krishnan Chettia