IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 18.12.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.01.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AS.Nos.712 & 713 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 & 1 of 2014 A.S.No.712 of 2012 T.Sudhakar ... Appellant Vs.

1. Sadacharam

2. Pavadaisami(died)

3. Parimala

4. Kumari 5. Sundari

6. V.Padmanabhan

7. Aboorvam Ammal (Died)

8. Punidhan

9. Jayaseelan 10. Premnath

11. Annaselvam

12. Dakshinamoorthy ...Respondents (R11 and R12 brought on record as LRs of deceased respondents 2 & 7 vide order dated

17.07.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.10040,10044 & 10042/2022 C.M.P.Nos.10839,10840,10842/2022 dt 17.07.2023 in A.S.No.712 of 2012)

PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011passed in O.S.No.88 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Judge-II), Cuddalore.

A.S.No.713 of 2012 1. Dakshinamoorthy

2. Dineshkumar

3. Sudhakar ... Appellants Vs.

1. Aboorvam Ammal

2. Sadacharam

3. Pavadaisami (died)

4. Padmanabhan

5. Parimala

6. Kumari 7. Sundari

8. Annaselvam (died) ...Respondents (R8 brought on record as LRs of deceased respondent 3 vide order dated

17.07.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.10937,10936 & 10930/2022 in A.S.No.713 of 2012)

PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011passed in O.S.No.101 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Judge-II), Cuddalore.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Gururaj For Respondents

1, 3 to 6 and 11 : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for Mr.D.Raivchander For Respondents 8 to 10, 12 : No appearance (In A.S.No.713 of 2012)

For Appellant : Mr.R.Gururaj For Respondents

2, 4 to 7 and 8 : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for Mr.D.Raivchander COMMON JUDGEMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2009 and the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.101 of 2008 is the appellant in A.S.No.712 of 2012. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.101 of 2008 and the defendants in O.S.No.88 of 2009 are the respondents in A.S.No.713 of 2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.101 of 2008 filed the suit for partition and the plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2009 filed the suit for declaration and injunction. In both suits, suit property is one and the same and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, the trial Court passed common judgement and decree dated 14.11.2011 in both the suits.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.101 of 2008 is that the suit property originally belonged to one Vadivel Pillai, who is the father of Vijayarangam Pillai. The first item of the suit property was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 18.05.1994 and the second item of the suit property is the ancestral property. After demise of said Vadivel Pillai, the said properties were devolved on his son Vijayarangam Pillai. The suit properties are the joint family co-parcenary properties of said Vijayarangam Pillai and plaintiffs 2 to 7 and 1^st defendant. They are entitled to have 1/8^th share on the demise of Vijayarangam Pillai, who died intestate on

27.06.2008. Therefore, each plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to have 9/64^th share in the suit properties. The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.101 of 2008 are the sons of the 1^st defendant. The 1st defendant issued notice to the plaintiffs on 12.07.2008, claiming that the 1st defendant had executed a registered settlement deed in their favour in respect of the suit properties on 23.05.2006. Since the suit properties are the joint family properties, the first defendant had no right or title over the property to execute settlement deed in favour of his sons. Hence the suit for partition.

5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2009 is that the suit properties were derived by his grandfather. Before demise of Vadivel Pillai, he had executed a settlement deed dated 23.05.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and his brother one, Dinesh Kumar. Thereafter, he died on 27.06.2008 intestate leaving behind the defendants as