JUDGMENT :

(Heard Video Conference)

(Prayer in S.A. No.1553 of 1996: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in A.S. No.37 of 1993 dated 30.04.1996 partly reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.613 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur dated 31.03.1993.

S.A. No.1560 of 1996: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.37 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, thereby confirming the decree and judgment passed in OS. No.613 of 1986 dated 31.03.1993 on the file of District Munsif and dismissed the suit in respect of the Schedule 1 & 2 Properties.)

1. Second Appeal No.1560 of 1996 has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No.613 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur challenging the rejection of his claim for partition in respect of suit item Nos.1 and 2. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff died and his Legal heirs were brought on record. Similarly, challenging the decree for partition in respect of suit item Nos.3 to 5, the defendants in O.S. No.613 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur preferred the Second Appeal No.1553 of 1996. Pending the appeal, the defendants 1 and 2 died and their Legal Heirs were brought on record.

2. Heard Mr. R. Mukundan, learned counsel for the Appellants in S.A.No.1553 of 1996 as well as for the respondents 2, 6 to 8, 9 to 12 in S.A.No.1560 of 1996 and Mr. T.S. Baskaran, learned counsel for the Appellants in S.A.No.1560 of 1996 as well as for the respondents 2 to 6 in S.A.No.1553 of 1996.

3. In the forthcoming paragraphs the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

4. The suit was filed for partition in O.S. No.613 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur for partition and separate possession of items 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, by order dated 19.12.1989 in I.A. No.1448 of 1988, items No.4 and 5 were added.

5. The deceased plaintiff Kasi Reddy filed the suit in O.S. No.613 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur for the relief of partition and separate possession. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants, who are the sons of paternal uncle Chinnaiah Reddy.

6. The genealogy tree is given below:-

7. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belongs to Kupathu Reddy, who is the grand father of the plaintiff. The said Kupathu Reddy had two sons viz., Chinnakuzhandai alias Chinnapappa and Chinnaiah Reddy. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of Chinnakuzhandai. The defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Chinnaiah Reddy.

8. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the demise of Kupathu Reddy, the suit schedule properties devolved upon his two sons Chinnakuzhandai and Chinnaiah Reddy. It is the case of the plaintiff that both the sons of Kupathu Reddy are entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, after the death of his father Chinnakuzhandai, he became entitled to entire 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties and the remaining half share belongs to the defendants who are the Legal Heirs of the deceased Chinnaiah Reddy.

9. According to the plaintiff, he was only a child when his father Chinnakuzhandai died. According to the plaintiff, he is the co-owner of the suit schedule properties along with the defendants and therefore according to him, the alienation of item Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties by Chinnaiah Reddy and his sons in favour of the father of the 6th defendant will