JUDGMENT :

1. Unsuccessful defendants 1 & 2 have preferred the appeal in A.S.(MD)No.32 of 2023 against O.S.No.50 of 2014. Unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred appeal in A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2023 against O.S.No.65 of 2016.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff/Parthipan filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 seeking the relief of declaration to declare the registered settlement deed (Ex.A19) executed by the first appellant/Kamala in favour of her daughter the second appellant/Jeyanthi in respect of item No.3 in suit second schedule namely the house property as null and void and further, relief of partition of the suit property schedule 1 to schedule 3 and allot 5/16 shares in his favour.

3. The above suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 was allowed by the trial Court thereby, the settlement deed in Ex.A19 is declared as null and void and so far as the relief of partition the trial Court granted the relief of partition to the extent of ¼ shares as against 5/16th shares as claimed and partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 30.09.2022 the defendants one and two have preferred the appeal in A.S.

4. The first and second defendants namely, Kamala and Jeyanthi (in O.S.No.50 of 2014) as the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 in respect of the house property, which is described as item No.3 in second schedule in O.S.No.50 of 2014 against Parthiban (Plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2014) for the relief of mandatory injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, Kamala and Jeyanthi have preferred the appeal in A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2023. For the shake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

5. The brief Case of the plaintiff in OS.No.50 of 2014 is as follows:- The first defendant/Kamala is the wife of the one Rajasekaran. The plaintiff/Parthiban and defendant No.2/Jeyanthi and defendant No. 3/Anandhi are their children. Rajasekaran had ancestral properties. He sold the said ancestral properties and utilized the proceeds to start a cinema theatre under the name and style of Rajeshwari Theatre. Hence, the said theatre business is a joint family business. The land over which the theatre is put up, originally, belonged to Alagusundara Ammal, the mother of the said Rajasekaran. She executed a registered settlement deed dated 23.05.1983 in favour of her son Rajasekaran. Rajasekaran was successful in running the said theatre. The said theatre business was run by him as the joint family business and the joint family comprised of the said Rajasekaran, his children, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. By running the theatre business successfully, Rajasekaran earned lot of money and making use of the same, he started real estate business which also will get the color as that of joint family business. Rajasekaran purchased many properties in his name and in the name of his family members. The properties as items 2 to 4 in first schedule purchased by Rajasekaran in his name. The properties 1 to 3 in the suit II schedule in the name of his wife namely Kamala/first defendant. The properties 1 to 11 in suit 'C' schedule were purchased by Rajasekaran in the name of daughter, the second defendant/Jeyanthi.

6. The second schedule properties numbering three items were purchased by Rajasekaran, out of joint family nucleus in the name of wife, the first defendant and she is only a name lender. The third schedule properties numbering 11 items were also purchased by Rajasekaran from out of joint family nucleus in the name of his daughter/second defendant and she is only a name lender. The first defendant has no independent right or title over second schedule properties, so also the third defendant over third schedule properties. While so, the first defendant, mother executed a registered settlement deed in respect of third item in second schedule in favour of her daughter, the second defendant, vide registered settlement deed dated 13.03.2014. Plaintiff's father Rajasekaran died on 31.03.