The importance of proper pleadings and the need for amendment of pleadings for a just and proper decision.

S.A. No. 885 of 2009 is filed by the second defendant in a suit for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

2. S.A. No. 886 of 2009 is filed by the fourth defendant in a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 3 to shift the service connection No.78 of Seethamangalam village from the suit property.

3. The appellant in both the appeals is one and the same. It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing on either side that the decision to be made in S.A. No. 885 of 2009 will automatically have a bearing on the other appeal S.A. No. 886 of 2009.

S.A. No. 885/2009:-

4. S.A. No. 885 of 2009 arises out of suit in O.S. No. 113 of 1993 filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madhurantakam. The first respondent herein as the plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration and permanent injunction as stated supra.

5. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is as follows:

The suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff in pursuant to a family partition took place on 19.09.1992 between himself and his brother, the first defendant. Thus, he is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit properties and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The second defendant is the brother-in-law of the first defendant. Even prior to partition, the first defendant wanted the plaintiff to sell the suit properties for Rs.10,000/- which the plaintiff did not agree. Prior to partition, the first defendant wanted to partition by way of koor chit dated 26.01.1991, also by including a sentence therein to sell the suit properties to the second defendant and the said term was not acceptable to the plaintiff. The second defendant was an attestor to the said koor chit. However later, the partition deed was effected and registered on 19.09.1992 as stated supra, conferring title of the suit property on the plaintiff. Even after the said registered partition deed, the defendants insisted the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in favour of the second defendant by way of bringing a draft sale deed. The plaintiff refused to do the same. The defendants are powerful men and they attempted to trespass into the suit properties. Therefore, the present suit for declaration and injunction is filed.

6. The first defendant filed a written statement and admitted that the suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff in the partition deed dated 19.02.1992 and he never challenged the title of the plaintiff. He further contended that he only recommended to sell the suit properties to the second defendant for a reasonable price, since he was in possession and enjoyment of the same for several years. He further contended that the plaintiff who agreed to sell the suit properties to the second defendant, however refused to do so.

7. The second defendant filed a written statement and contended as follows:

The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit properties in entirety. The documents created by the plaintiff will not clothe any title on him. The signature of the second defendant found in koor chit as contesting witness would have been obtained by misrepresentation.

8. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined three other independent witnesses as PW2 to PW4. He marked Exs.A1 to A33 in support of his case. The first defendant examined himself as DW1. The second defendant examined himself as DW2. They also examined two other independent persons as DW3 and 4. They have marked Exs.B1 to B112 in support of their contention.

9. The trial court upon considering the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence let in by them decreed the suit as prayed for. The second defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 24 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurantakam. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed th