COMMON JUDGMENT

All the three matters have been directed to be listed as per roster and since the Contempt Petition has been filed in S.A.No. 1067 of 2003, the three matters have been listed before this Court.

2. The Second Appeal and the First Appeal emanate from a suit for partition in O.S.No. 169 of 1977 which was on the file of Sub Court, Vellore. The said suit for partition had been filed by Soodamani Ammal against Raghurama Pillai and Pattabiraman, who are her brothers. As on date, the plaintiff Soodamani Ammal, the first defendant Raghurama Pillai and the second defendant Pattabiraman have all died but their legal representatives are still at lis over the issues which have been raised in the Original Suit, and more particularly in the preliminary decree passed and also in the final decree passed.

3. It must be mentioned that the said suit progressed and by consent of all the parties, a preliminary decree was passed on 11.03.1980 wherein the properties which were the subject matter of the partition suit were divided. The share of each of the parties determined at 1/3rd each. Questioning the said preliminary decree, A.S.No. 60 of 2001 was filed before the District Court at Vellore by the first defendant Raghurama Pillai. The First Appeal was dismissed by Judgment dated 26.09.2002. Questioning the said Judgment dismissing A.S.No. 60 of 2001 Raghurama Pillai, the first defendant filed S.A.No. 1067 of 2003.

4. In the meanwhile, since final decree also came to be passed, questioning the final decree, Raghurama Pillai had filed A.S.No. 496 of 2011. That appeal was originally filed before the District Court at Vellore with considerable delay. The delay application was transferred to this Court and by consent, the delay was condoned and A.S.No. 496 of 2011 came to be numbered and is also now listed before this Court.

5. It must also be mentioned that pending the Second Appeal an order of injunction had been granted restraining the respondents therein from dealing with or alienating any of the portions even though they have been allotted shares in the preliminary decree / final decree.

6. It is complained that the plaintiff/legal heirs of the plaintiff had dealt with the front portion of a particular property and questioning such sale deed, Contempt Petition No. 1197 of 2009 has been filed by G.R.Venkatesan, one of the legal heirs of Raghurama Pillai.

7. Heard Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and second appellants in S.A.No. 1067 of 2003 and also in Transferred A.S.No. 496 of 2011 and the petitioner in Contempt Petition No. 1197 of 2009 and Mr.V.Perumal for Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants 3 to 8 in S.A.No. 1067 of 2003 and Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the Second Appeal and in the First Appeal and also for Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel, who represented for the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant.

8. I must place on record my deep appreciation for the sanguine manner in which the learned counsels argued the matter. As a matter of fact they were of much assistance to this Court which has enabled disposal of all the three matters, namely, the Second Appeal, the First Appeal and also the Contempt Petition. Much prudence was exercised by the learned counsels.

9. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the second appellant /Contempt Petitioner had poined out that the parties are willing to abide by the terms of the final decree in so far as the division of the properties are concerned. The other aspect which has to be now examined is the ovelty to be paid to equalise the value of the properties allotted. It had been pointed out by Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel that each one, namely, the legal representatives of the plaintiff, of the first defendant and of the second defendant would be entitled to property worth Rs.14,15,000/-. It is also stated that the legal representatives of the plaintiffs have been allotted proper