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

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

The above four appeals arise out of two cross suits in O.S.No.307 of 2004 and O.S.No.841 of 2007 on the file of the IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2.The suit in O.S.No.307 of 2004 was laid for partition, seperate possession and rendition of accounts in respect of six items of immovable properties described in Schedule 1 and eleven items of movable properties described as Schedule 2. The plaintiff, who is the son of T.S.Ramasamy Chettiar and Sowdammal, who died on 21.01.1968 and 12.12.2001 respectively claimed 9/24th share in the suit properties on the premise that all the suit properties belonged to the joint family, of which, T.S.Ramasamy Chettiar was Karta. Claiming that T.S.Ramasamy Chettiar died leaving behind two sons and five daughters, the plaintiff / R.Balakrishnan would seek a share as a Coparcener and a share out of the share of Ramasamy Chettiar as Clause-1 heir. The other son and daughters of Ramasamy Chettiar, who are six in number and certain alienees as well as the wife of the 2nd defendant were the original defendants. One of the daughers of Ramasamy Chettiar, R.Sarojini died and her husband, son and daughter were impleaded as defendants 11 to 13. Basis on which, the plaintiff sought for partition is as follows:-

2.1.Ramasamy Chettiar and his children constituted a joint Hindu family. Ramasamy Chettiar was doing cloth business at Coimbatore and earned huge income. He, as a head of the family purchased various immovable and movable properties in the name of his wife Sowdammal, his eldest son, R.Varadharaj / 2nd defendant as well as his daugher-in-law / V.Selvarani, wife of the 2nd defendant. It was claimed that after the death of Ramasamy Chettiar on 21.01.1968, his wife Sowdammal, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 succeeded to his estate and have continued to be joint in status as joint family members. It is also claimed that all the properties were enjoyed jointly. Sowdammal died on 12.12.2001 and even after her death, the family continued to be joint without any disruption in their status. It is therefore, claimed by the plaintiff that the properties being joint family properties and by virtue of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6, being the children of Ramasamy Chettiar would each be entitled to 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. Though the original claim was to 9/24th share, the same was amended claiming 1/7th share.

3.The defendants 1 and 3 to 6 namely, daughters of Ramasamy Chettiar supported the case of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant, who is the other son of Ramasamy Chettiar filed a separate written statement, contending that the suit Item No.4 is his self-acquisition and suit Item No.6 is the self-acquisition of his wife / 9th defendant. It was the further contention of the 2nd defendant that Item Nos. 1 to 3 were purchased by Sowdammal under sale deed dated 27.10.1948 out of the income earned by doing Dairy business. It is also contended that on 05.06.1995, while in sound disposing state of mind, Sowdammal had executed a Will, giving life estate to the 9th defendant and absolute interest to the daugher of the 2nd defendant and 9th defendant, who figures as 10th defendant in the suit. An additional written statement was also filed by the 2nd defendant. The defendants 7 & 8, who were tenants were exonerated from the suit. A reply statement was filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.307 of 2004, contending that Sowdammal was bedridden and was not in the disposing state of mind during the year 1995 and the Will said to have been executed by her is not true and valid.

4.Even during the pendency of the above suit, the 9th defendant in A.S.No.307 of 2004 filed an independent suit in O.S.No.841 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the Will dated 05.06.1995 executed by her mother-in-law, Sowdammal is valid and binding and for a permanent injunction restraining th