JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

1. The above original side appeal is preferred by defendants 1 to 5, who were also the cross-objectors in C.S. No. 694 of 2012. The plaintiff/the first respondent herein is the son of one Ponnappa Pillai @ Perumal and Govindammal. The first and second defendants are son and daughter of the plaintiff's brother one P. Subramani. The 3rd and 4th defendants are wife and son of one S. Prabhakaran, who is the brother of first defendant. The fifth defendant is the mother of defendants 1 and 2 and the said S. Prabhakaran and wife of P. Subramani.

2. One Kalappa Naidu in the year 1915, had conveyed an extent of 116.13 grounds in Survey Nos. 2252 and 2253 and Re-survey Nos. 2024 and 2025 in Mylapore village in favour of plaintiff's father Ponnappa Pillai. In 1953, the mother of the plaintiff and wife of Ponnappa Pillai, namely Govindammal, died. Thereafter, the said Ponnappa Pillai @ Perumal had settled the entire properties in favour of his eldest son P. Subramani by a registered Settlement Deed on 29.07.1955. In the year 1957, the said Ponnappa Pillai died and the defendants who are the legal heirs of the said P. Subramani are in possession of the property. While so, the suit is filed by the plaintiff, who is the second son of Ponnappa Pillai for declaration that the decree in C.S. No. 185 of 2008, as null and void and for a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit property. As the defendants 1 to 5 are already in possession in their own right, they had filed a written statement along with a counter claim.

3. As per the counter claim, the defendants 1 to 5 had prayed for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the property, which is a vacant land measuring about 90 grounds and 75 sq.ft. in R.S. No. 2024 and paid the relevant court fees also. It is also admitted that, out of the original 116.13 grounds, a portion of the same, had been occupied by a mosque and also used as a burial ground for Muslims. Therefore, the Wakf Board and the Revenue Authorities were impleaded by the court suo motu.

4. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein alleged to have executed a settlement deed on 02.02.2007 in favour of the first defendant's father Subramani. Within a month, on 06.03.2007, the said Settlement Deed was cancelled unilaterally by him, for the reasons best 'known to him. The said property was settled by the original owner Ponnappa Pillai in favour of P. Subramani. The defendants 1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of P. Subramani, Had filed C.S. No. 185/2008 for a partition, which ended up in a compromise. A final decree was passed in terms of the compromise dated 11.03.2010, which is also exhibited as Ex. D8. There was yet another suit filed by one Dilshad. Both the plaintiff and the defendants in the present suit, were arrayed as parties in the above said suit. The appellants herein had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the said plaint, which was rejected by this court and an appeal filed by the plaintiffs therein in O.S.A. No. 121/2014 was dismissed for non-prosecution. Yet another appeal filed by the appellants herein in O.S.A. No. 20/2016 was also closed on 30.06.2016.

5. In the instant case, the trial court dismissed both the suit and the counter claim with costs of litigation payable to the defendants 6 to 10. Hence, the appeal.

6. A perusal of the records shows that no issue has been framed in the suit. The learned single Judge also has not mentioned what are the issues framed for consideration. Though the defendants 6 to 10 were impleaded suo motu, they also remained ex-parte and they have not filed any written statement. The defendants 1 to 5 had made a counter claim in their written statement by paying court fees, but the learned single Judge had not discussed the same. The object of framing an issue in a suit is only to ascertain the real dispute between the parties by narrowing down the area of conflict and determine whethe