JUDGMENT

These appeals arise from cross suits. R.S.A No.955 of 2009 arises from O.S No.4 of 2000 which is a suit filed by the appellant as plaintiff for partition. R.S.A No.951 of 2009 arises from O.S No.269 of 2000 which is a suit filed by the respondent as plaintiff for declaration of title over the property. The trial Court decreed the suit for partition and dismissed the suit for declaration of title. The decrees were reversed in appeal. It is challenging the same that these Regular Second Appeals have been filed.

2. Admittedly the plaint schedule property belonged to one Pazhaniyandi. His wife was Ponni. Pazhaniyandi had a brother named Ponnan. Pazhaniyandi and Ponni had a son named Chami. Valli is the wife of Chami. Two children namely, Pazhaniyandi and Paru were born to Chami and Valli. Paru was married to Appu. The plaintiff and her brother Gangadharan were born in their wedlock. Lakshmi the defendant, is the widow of Gangadharan. Except the plaintiff and the defendant others are no more. Valli-the wife of Chami was the last person to die. She died after 1956. As legal heir of Paru (the daughter of Valli), the plaintiff claims to be a co-owner along with Gangadharan, and thus