C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

O.S.No.92 of 2010 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for the relief of partition of suit properties into four equal shares and to allot 3/4 share to the respondents. O.S.No.75 of 2013 was filed by the appellant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The appellant and the respondents are the children of one Arumuga Gounder and Kanniammal. Both the suits were tried jointly and common judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the suit are referred as they are referred in O.S.No.92 of 2010. O.S.No.92 of 2010 is a comprehensive suit for partition and O.S.No.75 of 2013 is a suit for bare injunction.

3. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs from the averments made in O.S.No.92 of 2010 and the written statement in O.S.No.75 of 2013 in brief, is as follows:

The suit properties are the ancestral properties of Father Arumuga Gounder and some of the properties were purchased by him in 1967 and 1972 out of the income from the ancestral properties and joint efforts of all the family members. Thus, some of the properties were purchased in his name and they were treated and enjoyed as joint family properties. The parties are traditionally cultivating farmers. Mother Kanniammal pre-deceased her husband Arumuga Gounder about six years before filing of the suit. Father Arumuga Gounder died intestate leaving behind the appellant and the respondents as his legal heirs. Till date, the properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the parties. Due to domestic problem among the family members, the respondents wanted the appellant for amicable partition of the suit properties. Therefore, a legal notice dated 21.01.2010 was issued. The appellant sent reply dated 02.02.2010 claiming that father Arumuga Gounder executed a Will in his favour bequeathing some of the properties in his favour. The respondents sent a rejoinder on 14.06.2010. The appellant sent a reply on 22.06.2010 with a copy of the Will alleged to have been executed by father. He also filed a suit in O.S.No.407 of 2010 [ O.S.No.75 of 2013] on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi against the respondents for injunction. The Will alleged to have been executed by the father Arumuga Gounder on 31.03.2009 is a forged Will. It was executed with the help of close associates of the respondents. The suit properties were never treated as separate properties by Arumuga Gounder. He had no reason to exclude his other children to succeed his properties. The Wells in the properties were dug and the motor pump set was installed by all the family members and the service connection was in the name of the father Arumuga Gounder. The recitals in the Will show that they are invented for the purpose of excluding the legal heirs of Arumuga Gounder. Arumuga Gounder was 90 years old at the time of the alleged execution of the Will. He was taken care by all his children. His last rites were performed by the second respondent. The suit properties in O.S.No.75 of 2013 were shown as undivided properties without giving any specific boundary. Injunction cannot be granted for a common half share or 1/3rd share. The suit properties are enjoyed by all the children of Arumuga Gounder. The appellant admitted in O.S.No.407 of 2010 that the respondents 1 and 2 are residing in the suit properties ie., Parai Thottam.

4. Arumuga Gounder got ancestral properties in S.F.No.1 of Bolikoundenpalayam village and S.F.No.147, 148 of Poosaripatti village. In 1967, he purchased the properties of the aforesaid survey numbers along with his brother Palani Gounder and in oral partition, item No.1 in O.S.No.75 of 2013 was allotted to Arumuga Gounder. In 1972, he purchased the item No.2 in O.S.No.75 of 2013. This property was purchased from the income derived from the ancestral properties and joint efforts of