P.R. Shivakumar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the trial court [Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Salem] dated 31.08.2009 made in O.S. No. 154 of 2007. Originally the said suit was filed by the appellant herein on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur as O.S. No. 38/2005 against deceased Sarojammal the respondents herein for the relief of partition, separate possession and for a permanent injunction restraining the said Saroja and the respondent No. 1/defendants 1 and 2 from alienating the properties in favour of 2nd respondent/third defendant. Subsequently, it was transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Salem and re-numbered as O.S. No. 154/2007. The learned trial Judge, decreed the suit for partition granting a preliminary decree declaring the appellant herein/plaintiff to be entitled to 1/3 share in the suit properties. However the learned trial judge incorporated a direction in the preliminary decree to the effect that at the time of passing of the final decree, the entire first item of the suit properties should be allotted towards the 2/3rd share of Saroja and the first respondent herein/defendants 1 and 2 in equity and that the appellant/plaintiff will be entitled to allotment of more extent in the second item of the suit properties so as to compensate the loss of 1/3rd share in respect of first item of the suit properties. So far as the relief of injunction is concerned, it was granted against Saroja and the first respondent herein/defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the second item of the suit properties alone.

2. Aggrieved by the direction incorporated in the preliminary decree for allotment of first item of the suit property in entirety to the 2nd respondent herein/3rd defendant representing the 2/3rd share of Saroja and first respondent herein/defendants 1 and 2 and as against the refusal to grant the relief of injunction in respect of the first item of the suit property, the appellant herein/plaintiff has come forward with the present appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.

3. After the disposal of the suit by the trial court, the first defendant Saroja passed away and hence the defendants 2 and 3 have been shown as respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. In order to avoid confusion and to achieve clarity, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in the appeal also are provided.

4. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, can be stated thus:

(i) The deceased first defendant Saroja is the mother of the plaintiff Uma Maheswari and the second defendant Nagarajan. The second defendant Nagarajan is the brother-cum-son-in-law of the plaintiff. The third defendant Muthu is a third party, who is alleged to be the holder of an agreement for sale executed by the defendants 1 and 2. Under two sale deeds dated 19.01.1948 and 01.03.1948, Venkatraman (the father of the plaintiff) purchased two adjacent properties along with his brothers from out of their self-earned money. However, the sale deeds were taken in the name of their mother Nagammal out of the love and respect they did have towards their mother. One Rukmani Ammal, the sister of Nagammal purchased another property in or about the year 1935. She had no issues and she had also lost her husband. As such, she was looked after by Nagammal and his sons. Out of her love and affection towards the sons of Nagammal, Rukmani Ammal gifted the property purchased by her to the sons of Nagammal under a registered Settlement Deed of the year 1969. Nagammal died in the year 1971. Even during the life time of Nagammal, the property purchased in her name and the property settled by Rukmani Ammal were jointly enjoyed by all the three sons of Nagammal. In the year 1973, they effected an oral partition of the above said properties and started enjoying their respective shares separately. Meanwhile Ven