C O M M O N O R D E R

Since the issues involved in both the Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article

227 of Consitution of India against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in M.V.Nos.22 and 23 of 2016 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai reversing the order dated 06.02.2016 made in proceedings in R.No.31111/A5/2016 and R.No.31112/A5/2015 respectively passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar.

3. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties are mentioned as per their ranks in the suit.

4. The plaintiff, who is the 2nd respondent has filed a suit in O.S.no.12 of 2006 as against the legal heirs of the 1st defendant, who had died. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of 1st defendant and the 1st defendant maried the 6th defendant in the year 1954. The 1st defendant, his borther, Santhana thevar and Ganesan sold some of their ancestral properties and started Velmurugan Tyres Rebutton - Retrading Company works [hereinafter referred to as family business]. The 1st defendant and his two brothers partitioned their Hindu undivided family movable properties by a deed daed 01.04.1973. In the said deed, the 1st defendant was allotted B schedule properties, in consequence, the 1st defendant and his brother Santhana thevar and Ganesan with their mother Kaluvayee ammal entered into another partition deed for the same joint family business and the 1st defendant was allotted B schedule properties and they are described as 2nd schedule properties in the suit. Thereafter, the 1st defendant had developed illegal intimacy with one Jeya, who was arrayed as 7th defendant and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are their children. However, the plaintiff was in good relationship with his father, 1st defendant. The 1st defendant, who was in the clutches of the said Jeya and her children were acting against the interest of the Hindu Undivided family and started transferring and effecting encumbrance of schedule properties. The plaintiff, being the only legitimate son born out of the wed lock between the defendants 1 and 6, has filed a suit for partition of his half share.

5. In contrary, written statement was filed by the defendants 1, 2 and

5. The 1st defendant had stated that he married 6th defendant in the year 1958 and divorced her on 27.09.1961 before Panchayathdars, as per the caste custom prevailing in Kallar Community. From the year 1961, there is no relationship between the 1st and 6th defendant and the 6th defendant was settled fully and finally, and she also married a person, who was running rice business at Thirupparankundram. The allegation that Jeya is in illegitimate relationship with the 1st defendant is false and she is legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant. Already, the plaintiff had received his share, as per the family arrangements and that he has no right to demand 50% share in the suit property and the same belongs to the defendants 1 to

4.

6. The 5th defendant, who is a bank has filed a separate written statement stating that the property belongs to Jeya w/o Mayandi and she is the absolute owner of the property. The said property was originally purchased by Jeya from A.M.M.Arunachalam and his son M.A.Murugappan, represented by his father, which was a joint family property on 19.09.1979. The bank has been occupying the said premises since 1990 by paying a rent of Rs.11,760/- till 15.04.2003. Lease deed was executed for a period from march 1990 to March 2000 and now it has been rernewed for a further period of 10 years commencing from 09.03.2000 to 08.03.2010 and the rent after renewal is fixed as Rs.24,000/- per month from 16.04.2003 till 08.03.2005 and with 25% increase in rent from 09.03.2005 to 08.03.2010, ie., Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, there is no cause of action against the said bank and that the bank is entitled to hold property towards security for loan, is