COMMON JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of his half share in the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any way altering the structure of the suit property or creating any encumbrance over the suit schedule property till the suit property is divided by metes and bounds. The trial Court decreed the suit. The 2nd defendant filed A.S.No.32 of 2014. The defendants 3 and 5 filed A.S.No.5 of 2015. The 4th defendant filed A.S.No.9 of 2018. All the first appeals were filed before Principal District Court, Madurai. The learned District Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, allowed all the three appeals thereby dismissing the suit in entirety. As against the same, S.A(MD)Nos.589 to 591 of 2020 have been filed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Muthusamy Naidu. He had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his 1st wife, Rengammal on 13.07.1973 under Exhibit A.1. The said Rengammal had died issueless. The 2nd wife, namely, Muthammal and her son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy inherited the suit schedule properties and they were in joint enjoyment. After the death of Muthammal and Pitchai @ Narayanasamy, the plaintiff and his son are in joint enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of Pitchai @ Narayanasamy.

4. The plaintiff has further contended that the said Pitchai @

Narayanasamy, his father, has executed a registered Will under Exhibit A.4 on 17.11.1994 and bequeathed the properties in favour of the 1st defendant, namely, the son of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff admitted the execution of the Will, he questioned the right of the said Pitchai @ Narayanasamy to execute a Will in respect of the ancestral property. According to the plaintiff, after the death of father of his Pitchai @ Narayanasamy, the plaintiff and his son, namely, the 1st defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Since the 1st defendant is not amenable for partition, the present suit has been filed.

5. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties in the hands of Muthammal and Pitchai @ Narayanasamy. During her life time, the said Muthammal had executed a settlement deed under Exhibit A.2 on 13.02.1978 in favour of his son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy. Since Muthammal and Pitchai @ Narayanasamy were co-owners and one of the co-owners has executed a settlement deed in favour of the other co-owner, Pitchai @ Narayanasamy became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, the said Pitchai @ Narayanasamy had executed a Will in favour of his grand- son, namely, the 1st defendant under Exhibit A.4 on 17.11.1994. In view of the said Will, the 1st defendant alone is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties.

6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that both the parties have admitted Exhibit A.1-settlement deed executed by Muthusamy in favour of his 1st wife Rengammal. Muthusamy did not have any issues through Rengammal and the said Rengammal died intestate. On the death of Rengammal, the properties would devolve upon the 2nd wife of Muthusamy, namely, Muthammal and her son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy. According to the trial Court, Muthammal had no right to execute Exhibit A.2-settlement deed in favour of his son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy and held that such a settlement deed is not legally valid. The trial Court further found that since Exhibit A. 2 -settlement deed in favour of Pitchai @ Narayanasamy is invalid, the Will executed by the said Pitchai @ Narayanasamy in favour of the 1st defendant under Exhibit A.4 is also invalid.

7. The trial Court further found that the properties i