1. In view of the inter-connectivity of both the cases, this common judgment is delivered.

2. Following are the allegations in short available in the plaint made in O.S. No. 49 of 1987:

2.1. The properties described in the schedule among others belonged to one Damodaraswamy Naidu, who was the husband of the first plaintiff, the father of the second plaintiff and the second defendant and the son of the first defendant, by virtue of a partition between him and the second defendant on 7.2.1979 and also by acquisition. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant and the fourth defendant is his father-in-law. Damodaraswamy Naidu died on 1.7.1986. After the demise of Damodaraswamy Naidu, there was a misunderstanding with respect to enjoyment of his properties arose between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants 1 to 4 on the other. By the intervention of the Panchayatdars a temporary arrangement came into being under which the first plaintiff and the first defendant were allowed to remain in possession of the immovable properties belonging to Damodaraswamy Naidu. In the said arrangement, it was arrived that if there is any Will executed by Damodaraswamy Naidu, parties will have to work out their rights in accordance with that. The plaintiffs stated that the first plaintiff was in possession of item 1 of the properties and was put in possession of the said property with the first defendant as per the temporary arrangement as referred to above. The first plaintiff has also permitted the third parties to cut the grass as cattle feed at the fixed rates.

2.2. While in sound and disposing state of mind, Damodaraswamy Naidu executed a Will dated 9.8.1984 bequeathing his properties to the plaintiffs with a direction that the first plaintiff should pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month to the first defendant during her life time. Damodaraswamy Naidu did not give any right to his son, the second defendant in any of his properties as he had strained relationship with his son, the second defendant. The said Will was taken from a locker in Bank of Baroda by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was appointed as nominee by Damodaraswamy Naidu with respect to the locker, entitling her to open the locker. In fact, in the temporary arrangements made in Panchayat it was mentioned that the nominee shall take the articles available in the locker. The plaintiffs after getting the key of the locker from the Panchayatdars opened the locker and found that there was a Will besides a bunch of keys. The original documents of the partition deed dated 7.2.1979, the sale deed dated 17.2.1968 in favour of Damodaraswamy Naidu and the temporary arrangements are all entrusted to the Panchayatdars.

2.3. By virtue of the bequest made by Damodaraswamy Naidu, under the Will, the plaintiffs became entitled to the properties described in the schedule as items 1, 2 and 3 and their absolute right with respect of the same should be declared in favour of the plaintiffs. The possession of the first plaintiff regarding immovable property should be protected by a decree for injunction by virtue of the Will dated 9.8.1984 and by the temporary arrangement dated 6.12.1986, the defendants 2 to 4 are in possession of the motor car described in item 2 in the schedule and they should be directed to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration regarding their absolute right to the deposit amounts described in item No. 3 and available with the defendants 5 and 6, so that on the basis of the Will, they can recover the amount due under the fixed deposits.

2.4. The possession of the plaintiffs with respect to item No. 1 of the suit properties must be protected in view of the Will dated 9.8.1984. Though under the temporary arrangements the first defendant also was allowed to be in possession of item No. 1, she did not remain in occupation and left for her village Siddhanaickenpalayam, Palladam Taluk. She i