JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 07.03.2015 made in A.S.No.54 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani, confirming the fair and final order dated 29.11.2013 made in I.A.No.100 of 2010 in O.S.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2015 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 29.11.2013 passed in I.A.No.100 of 2010 in O.S.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

2. At the time of admission of the second appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.

(i) Whether the Courts below are justified in amending the suit properties for effecting partition without amending the suit schedule property in the preliminary decree?

(ii) Whether the final decree adding the properties not shown in the suit schedule of properties without amending the suit schedule properties is sustainable?

(iii) Whether the final decree in an agricultural property without the right of water channel is sustainable?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

5. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the reliefs of declaration and possession or in the alternative for partition, past and future mense profits. The abovesaid suit has been contested by the defendants and the trial court, based on the appreciation of the materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, determined that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit properties and entitled to recover the possession of the same from the defendants and relegated the determination of the mense profits by way of a separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC and accordingly disposed of the plaintiffs' suit in favour of the plaintiffs and by way of the same, declined the alternative relief of partition prayed for by the plaintiffs in the suit. The defendants 1 and 2 impugned the judgment and decree of the trial court by way of preferring the first appeal and the first appellate court also on a consideration of the materials placed on record and the submissions made, was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree of the trial court. Impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate court as well as the trial court, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred the second appeal in the High Court in S.A.No.1115 of 2002 and this Court after considering the submissions putforth by the respective parties and determining that inasmuch as, the parties are admitting that already partition had been effected between Chinna Perumal Gounder and his brother and the suit properties were allotted to Chinna Perumal and the same were in his exclusive possession and enjoyment, accordingly further determining that the suit properties cannot be said to be the joint family properties after such partition and thereby modified the judgment and decree of the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiffs altogether will be entitled to 2/3 share in the suit properties and the defendants 1 and 2 would be entitled to 1/3 share in the suit properties and accordingly granted the preliminary decree in the suit on the above terms and accordingly disposed of the Second Appeal. Following the judgment and decree of this Court in the abovesaid Second Appeal, the plaintiffs had preferred I.A.No.100 of 2010 in O.S.No.20 of 1996 before the trial court for passing the final decree in terms of the preliminary decree granted by the High Court. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the abovesaid final decre