JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The Suit in C.S. No. 422 of 2001 is for Partition and separate possession of the Plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the Plaint Schedule 'A' to 'D' properties and for a Declaration that the Family Arrangement, dated 1.6.1994 is void, ab initio and non-est. The Plaintiff had also sought for a Declaration that the sale made by the First Defendant of a portion of the Suit 'B' Schedule property is not binding on the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant and for other reliefs.

2. The relationship of the parties in the Suit is as follows:

One C.M. Sundararaj died on 23.1.1979 leaving behind the Plaintiff/his wife, the First Defendant/son and the Second Defendant/daughter. Pending Suit, the Plaintiff died and the Second Defendant was transposed as the Plaintiff.

3. According to the Plaintiff, the Suit 'A' Schedule property that stands in the name of the First Defendant and it was allotted to him by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. As regards the 'B' Schedule property, it is claimed that the property was assigned by the Government to her husband C.M. Sundararaj, who paid the consideration even during his life time. After his death on 23.1.1979, the Sale Deed came to be executed by the Small Industries Development Corporation on 2.3.1995 in the name of the First Defendant on the basis of Consent Affidavits executed by the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant. The Schedule 'C property stands in the name of the Plaintiff. She had purchased it on 3.8.1999. The funds for the said purchase came out of the sale of the property that belonged to Late C.M. Sundararaj at Besant Nagar. The Suit 'D' Schedule property was actually purchased in the name of the First Defendant. The First Defendant however, executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the Plaintiff on 3.6.1994. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that all the properties were purchased out of the income from the 'B' Schedule property, where the father namely, Late C.M. Sundararaj carried on business. Therefore, according to the Plaintiff, herself and the Defendants 1 & 2, being the son and daughter of C.M. Sundararaj are entitled to 1/3rd share each.

4. The Suit was resisted by the First Defendant contending that the 'D' Schedule property belongs to the First Defendant and the same having been settled on her by him pursuant to the Family Arrangement, dated 1.6.1994. As regards the 'C Schedule property, the First Defendant would admit that it was purchased out of the Sale proceeds of the Besant Nagar flat. However, the First Defendant would claim that as per the Family Arrangement reached soon after the death of C.M. Sundararaj, it was agreed that the Besant Nagar property was to be taken by the mother. Hence, the First Defendant does not claim any share or right over the properties described in the Schedule 'C & 'D' to the Plaint.

5. As regards the 'A' Schedule property, the First Defendant would claim that he is the absolute Owner, since he had purchased the property out of his own funds. In so far as the 'B' Schedule property is concerned, the First Defendant would admit the ownership of Late C.M. Sundararaj. He would however contend that the 'D' Schedule property was allotted to him in the oral Family Arrangement that took place soon after the death of C.M. Sundararaj and he had agreed to take over the liabilities of the business of Late C.M. Sundararaj, which is only pursuant to the said understanding. The Plaintiffs 1 & 2 namely, wife and daughter of Late C.M. Sundararaj had executed Affidavits expressing their consent for execution of Sale Deed in favour of the First Defendant. Therefore, the First Defendant had become the absolute owner of the 'B' Schedule properties.

6. It is also the contention of the First Defendant that he was aged 18 years and the Second Defendant was aged 15 years in 1979, when then-father died. As regards the 'A' Schedule property is concerned, initial allotment was made on 8.2.1984 and Rs.30,000 was paid as advance and the remaining amount was paid at Rs