ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

1. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 26.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.730 of 2010.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit in C.S.No.730 of 2010, and they sought for the following reliefs in the suit:

(a) To partition the suit property by metes and bounds and hand over separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/6th share each in the suit schedule property.

(b) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs in possession of their respective 1/6th share in the suit property.

(c) To direct the Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by this Court to ascertain the mesne profits from the suit schedule property and direct the defendants to pay the plaintiffs their respective 1/6th share until the plaintiff's 1/6th shares are delivered to them.

(d) To declare that the partition deed under Document No.867 of 2000 alleged to have been executed on 27.11.2000 as null and void.

(e) To declare that the Settlement deed in Document No.455 of 2010 dated 10.02.2010, executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void.

(f) To direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.

3. The first appellant is the mother and the second to fifth appellants are her daughters. The first respondent is the son of the first appellant and the second respondent is the son of the first respondent.

4. The appellants filed the suit against the respondents for the reliefs mentioned above, claiming right over the suit schedule property as the legal heirs of late Mr.S.Ramadas, the husband of the first appellant and the father of the second to fifth appellants. The appellants claimed that each of them were entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule property and the remaining share fell to the first respondent / first defendant in the suit. Since, the respondents / defendants have not come forward to partition the suit schedule property after the death of Mr.S.Ramadas, the appellants filed the suit against the respondents seeking partition of the suit schedule property and for other declaratory reliefs which included the relief of declaration to declare the partition deed dated 27.11.2000 bearing document No.867 of 2000 and settlement deed dated 10.02.2010 executed by the first respondent in favour of his son, the second respondent as null and void.

5. The plaint averments in brief are as follows:

(a) The suit schedule property is land and building at New No.22, Old No.13, Manickeswari Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, measuring 7200 sq. ft in RE-Survey No.3130 of Purasawalkam Village. This property originally belonged to Mr.S.Ramadas, the husband of the first appellant and the father of the appellants 2 to 5 and the first respondent.

(b) The said Ramadas, purchased the suit schedule property under sale deed dated 10.07.1955 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner till his death on 06.08.1976. He died intestate leaving behind the appellants and the first respondent as his legal heirs. The appellants and the first respondent are each entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.

(c) The first appellant, the mother, was residing in the property along with the first respondent. The remaining appellants are married and now settled at different places, but they used to visit and stay in the suit schedule property along with the first appellant, whenever they come to Chennai. The first respondent was having custody of the documents of the suit schedule property and was entrusted with the same by the appellants on the firm belief that he will maintain the family house as he is the eldest and the only son of the first appellant.

(d) Even though, Mr.Ramadas died as early as on 06.08.1976, the first respondent being the only son, did not come forward to partition the suit schedule property to enable all the legal heirs to get 1/6th sha