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

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

All these appeals arise out of five suits between the same parties with reference to the same properties. They have been disposed of by a common judgment by the Trial Court and hence these Appeals are also disposed of by a common judgment.

2. OS No.76 of 2011 which is the earliest suit has been filed by the plaintiffs therein seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit properties and from altering the physical features of the properties. The suit properties were owned by one Muthu Gounder, who died on 08.09.2006 leaving behind a daughter and a son by name Rajammal and Nachimuthu respectively. The said Rajammal had two sons by name Krishnamurthi and Shanmugam and Nachimuthu had two sons by name Senthilnathan and Sridhar.

3. The plaintiffs in OS No. 76 of 2011 would claim that Muthu

Gounder has executed a power of attorney in favour of their mother Rajammal on 07.01.2002 and as a power agent of Muthu Gounder, Rajammal had sold the property to the plaintiffs on 24.07.2006. Therefore, according to them, they are the absolute owners of the property and as such they are entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for.

4. This suit was resisted by the defendants, who are the son and grandsons of Muthu Gounder, viz Nachimuthu and his two sons, contending that the sale by Rajammal is invalid since Muthu Gounder, even when he was alive, had executed a Deed of settlement in favour of his grandsons through his son Nachimuthu on 20.12.2005.

5. The following issues were framed in the said suit:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from tress passing into the suit property;

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from altering the physical features of the suit properties; and 3. To what other reliefs?

6. The second suit viz. OS No.89 of 2009 which came to be instituted on 14.11.2006 by Nachimuthu son of Muthu Gounder against his sister Rajammal and her two sons seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession. Nachimuthu claimed that he is in possession of the property as the settlee under the registered Settlement Deed dated 20.12.2005 executed by Muthu Gounder and that the defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession with the aid of the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by Rajammal, the daughter on 24.07.2006 in her capacity as power agent of Muthu Gounder.

7. This suit was resisted by the defendants therein viz. the daughter and her children contending that the Settlement Deed dated 20.12.2005 is invalid and the sons of Rajammal are in possession of the property as per the Sale Deed executed by Rajammal in their favour on 24.07.2006. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues in the said suit:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for;

2.To what other reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to?

9. The third suit in OS No.129 of 2006 was filed by Rajammal seeking partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties. She claimed that the Settlement Deed executed by Muthu Gounder in favour of his grandsons on 20.12.2005 is invalid. Upon the death of Rajammal on 14.11.2007, her sons were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the said suit. Nachimuthu and his two sons were the defendants in the said suit.

10. The defendants resisted the suit contending that since Muthu

Gounder had parted with the property even during his lifetime in favour of his grandsons through Nachimuthu, a suit for partition will not lie.

11. The following issues were framed in the said suit:

1.Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title in the suit properties;

2.Whether Muthu Gounder executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff;

3.Whether the gif