T. Ravindran, J.

Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgement and decree dated 02.11.2010 made in A.S.No.106 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore, in partly confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2008 made in O.S.No.588 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

2. The suit has been laid for partition and permanent injunction.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiffs' case is as follows:

The first plaintiff is the only son and the defendants are the daughters of the deceased K.Palani and the deceased Lingammal. The second plaintiff is the minor son of the first plaintiff. The suit property is the property of the deceased K.Palani. However, the deceased K.Palani, on account of his bad habits, was not looking after the family and it is only the first plaintiff, who had been looking after the family and also, put up the construction on the suit property and it is only, the first plaintiff, who had performed the funeral ceremony of his parents and it is only, the first plaintiff, who had spent for the marriage of his sisters viz., the defendants. While so, after the death of K.Palani, the defendants had started making some claims over the suit property and also, they have set up the Wills said to have been executed by the deceased K.Palani in their favour in respect of the suit property. However, the alleged Wills said to have been executed by the deceased K.Palani in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property are fabricated documents and based upon the same, the defendants are not entitled to claim any right or share over the suit property. As such, it is only the plaintiff, who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and inasmuch the defendants, without any valid title or right, had started making claim over the suit property and also, attempted to interfere with the first plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and as the second plaintiff is also entitled to claim share in the suit property, as such, the suit has been laid for partition of the plaintiffs' 2/5 share in the suit property and also, for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The defendants' case in the written statement are briefly stated as follows;

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The relationship between the parties is admitted. It is correct to state that the suit property belonged to the deceased K.Palani, but, it is false to state that the deceased K.Palani was not maintaining the family on account of his bad habits. The Patta, in respect of suit property, was granted in favour of the deceased K.Palani and it is the deceased K.Palani, who had contributed his money and labour for putting up the construction on the suit property. It is false to state that the first plaintiff had put up the construction on the suit property out of his income and money and he had celebrated the marriage of the defendants. The deceased K.Palani, out of his love and affection towards his daughters, had executed three separate Wills dated 19.05.2000 bequeathing the suit property in favour of the defendants and the suit Wills were registered and therefore, based upon the said Wills, it is only the defendants, who are entitled to the suit property and the First plaintiff much less the second plaintiff are not entitled to claim any share or right over the suit property. It is false to state that the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that, the defendants are attempting to interfere with their possession and enjoyment. The second plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the suit property. The suit property is bad for misjoinder of parties and also, bad for non-joinder of all the properties. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. In support of the plaintiffs' case, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs1 to 3 we