The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper execution and registration of family arrangements, the necessity of providing an opportunity to the contesting party when admitting additional evidence, and the importance of filing a partition suit for resolving disputes over undivided properties.

JUDGMENT :

R. PONGIAPPAN, J.

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge at Madurai dated 26.08.1999, passed in A.S. No. 34 of 1998, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1460 of 1993 dated 13.11.1997 on the file of the III Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 34 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai. In earlier, the respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal filed a suit in O.S. No. 1460 of 1998 on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, seeking the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to western half in suit item 1 and undivided half of items 2 and 3 and consequently, restraining the first defendant from seeking the third defendant for transferring the registry in his name exclusively to the entire suit items 1 to 3 constituted as house bearing Door No. 20, Andavan Kovil Street, Tirumangalam and also to restrain the third defendant from effecting registry kept in his office exclusively in the name of the first defendant in respect of suit items 1 to 3. The Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in its judgment and decree dated 13.11.1997, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled the relief as prayed and ultimately, dismissed the suit.

2. Aggrieved over the said findings, the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S. No. 34 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai. The learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, by judgment and decree dated 26.08.1999, allowed the appeal and granted the decree that the plaintiffs be and they are hereby entitled to western half in the suit item 1 and undivided half of items 2 and 3 be and hereby is declared. Further restrained the first defendant by means of a permanent injunction from seeking the third defendant for transferring in his name exclusively to the entire suit items 1 to 3 constituted as house bearing Door No. 20, Andavan Koil Street, Thirumangalam and also the third defendant to be and hereby is restrained from effecting the registry kept in his office exclusively in the name of the first defendant in respect of suit items 1 to 3. Against the said findings, the first defendant in the suit is before this Court with the present Second appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

4. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

(i) The suit property is a house bearing Door No. 20, Andavan Kovil Street, Thirumangalam lying east-west in three units. Originally, this property belonged to Solai Nadar and his brother Seeranga Nadar. A partition took place in the family of the above said two and this property was allotted to Solai Nadar. Solai Nadar is the father of the first defendant and paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and the second defendant. Solai Nadar executed a Will on 16.10.1971 with regard to his joint family properties. After the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956, Solai Nadar could execute a Will only in respect of his undivided share in the properties. The action of Solai Nadar was questioned by the defendants.

(ii) The first defendant along with his sons entered into a family arrangement on 31.10.1971. In that family arrangement, the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5, one Raman and the first defendant were allotted the suit properties. In the first item of the suit properties, the first defendant was allotted the eastern half and the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5, namely Raman was allotted the western half of the suit properties. They were enjoyed 2nd and 3rd items in common. The family arrangement, dated 31.10.1971 is considered to be lost its value under Section 17 (1) (b) of Registration Act, to prove the possession and enjoyment it can be acceptable under Section