A. SELVAM, J.

The present case is a text book example of, as to how an internecine battle is being fought, for over a period of two decades, by Siblings in respect of a flimsy dispute.

2. These Original Side Appeal No. 295 of 2006 and Cross-Objection No. 132 of 2010 are directed against the judgment and decree, dated 24.2.2006, passed in C.S. No. 1388 of 1993, by the learned single Judge of this Court.

3. The appellant in O.S.A. No. 295 of 2006, as plaintiff, has instituted C.S. No. 1388 of 1993, on the file of this Court, praying to pass a preliminary decree of partition, wherein, the respondents shown in O.S.A. No. 295 of 2006, have been arrayed as defendants.

4. The nubble of the averments made in the plaint may be stated like thus:

The plaintiff is a daughter of deceased T.K. Anantharaman and Meenakshi. The said Anantharaman has passed away on 26.9.1972 and his wife has passed away on 18.3.1973. At the time of demise, the said Anantharaman has not possessed of good health. The defendants 1 to 4 are the blood brothers of the plaintiff. The defendants 5 to 7 are the children of the said Anantharaman, born through his first wife. The sixth defendant has been given ancestral properties, whereas 7th defendant, at the time of marriage has been given enormous jewels and money etc. The properties mentioned in the schedule are the absolute properties of the deceased Anantharaman and he died intestate. The brothers of the plaintiff are duty bound to perform marriage of the plaintiff. But they have not done it. The plaintiff and her three brothers have resided in the suit property and subsequently, the plaintiff has been driven out. The defendants have sent a legal notice dated 30.08.1993, wherein certain clauses of settlement deed have been mentioned. The plaintiff has not been informed about the existence of settlement deed. The suit properties even now have not been partitioned and in which the plaintiff is having 1/6th share. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought therein.

5. The contraction of the averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant may be stated like thus:

It is false to aver that the plaintiff is a member of Hindu undivided family. On 8.9.1972, the deceased Anantharaman has executed a settlement deed. At the time of execution, the plaintiff has been present. The plaintiff has addressed a letter to the 4th defendant, wherein, she admitted the terms of settlement deed. It is true to aver that the said Anantharaman has passed away due to illness. At the time of his death, the plaintiff has attained 21 years of age. The plaintiff is not having right of partition in view of settlement deed dated 8.9.1972, except for payment of Rs. 20,000/- payable to her at the time of marriage. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. In the written statement filed on the side of defendants 2 and 4 it is averred that on 8.9.1972, the deceased Anantharaman has executed a settlement deed, wherein specific provisions have been made in favour of his wife and defendants 1 to 4. In other aspects, defendants 2 and 4 have supported the written statement filed by the first defendant.

7. The written statement filed by the 3rd defendant is similar to that of the first defendant.

8. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, necessary issues have been framed and after pondering both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit in respect of claim of partition and decreed the same to an extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- to be paid by defendants 1 to 4 and to that effect, a charge is created over the suit second schedule. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge are being challenged in the present Original Side Appeal as well as in the Cross Objection.

9. Since common question of law and facts are involved in O.S.A. No. 295 of 2006 and Cross Objection No. 132 of 2010, common judgment i