The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein. Both the suits in O.S.310/1995 and 123/2000 arising out of which are the present two second appeals, were filed by the first respondent/plaintiff by name Natarajan. While OS.310/1995 came to be filed for declaring the possessory right of the plaintiff in respect of suit A schedule property and for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with such possessory right of the plaintiff in suit A schedule property until division by metes and bounds is effected and permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from creating documents in respect of B schedule property and partition of A and B schedule properties, 0.S.123/2000 came to be filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from dispossessing the plaintiff by force or in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Out of two suits, OS.123 of 2000 injunction suit was earlier in point of time and the plaint was filed on 18.8.1995 and was numbered as O.S.No.271 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri and was thereafter transferred to Sub Court, Krishnagiri by the order of the High Court and renumbered as O.S.123/2000.

2. The suit properties in respect of which the reliefs sought for in both the suits are vacant sites bearing D.No.5 west Link Road, Co-operative colony, Boganapalli Revenue Village, Krishnagiri Town, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, including two storied terraced building having one Nursing Home under the name and style of Rangachari Nursing Home, which includes operation theatre, devices and equipments, apparatus, bed, etc. and the adjacent house bearing Door No.6 within four boundaries more fully described as A and B schedule properties respectively and movables more fully described as items 1 to 27 in O.S.No.310/1995.

3. The parties in support of their respective claims, adduced oral and documentary evidence. Both the suits were by common judgment dated 24.9.2004 decreed in favour of the plaintiff by accepting the plaintiff's case that the registered partition deed effected between the parties on 23.4.1970 was only in respect of the properties mentioned therein and Rangachari Nursing Home at Door No.5 and adjoining residential house at Door No.6 was purchased and developed from and out of the ancestral nucleus and the income jointly derived from the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 in the nursing home through medical profession and are the properties belonging to joint family consisting of the first defendant/father and the plaintiff and other defendants 2 and 3/sons. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants 1 and 2 filed AS Nos.61 and 62/2004. The lower Appellate court on due analysis of the facts and the evidence, dismissed the appeals, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, these two second appeals by the defendants 1 and 2 before this court.

4. Both the second appeals are admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

SA.866/2006:

(a) Is there a presumption that all purchases made by the Karta are through the joint family income, when it is an admitted fact that the 1st appellant is a successful medical practitioner?

(b) In the absence of proof as regards income from the ancestral property, are the courts below justified in holding the suit properties as joint family properties?

SA.867/2006:

Is the suit for injunction maintainable as against the true owner?

5. At the time of hearing, this Court framed the following additional substantial questions of law, for determination in SA.866/2006:

(i) Whether a second partition action is maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 1?

(ii) Whether Ex.A4 will not bar the present suit for partition, when the plaintiff had not even pleaded and proved that the said partition is inequitable and fails to reflect equal distribution?

6. Heard both s