The Release Deed executed in favor of the plaintiff covered only a specific property extent, affirming co-ownership rights and preventing one owner from alienating specific portions independently.

JUDGMENT

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated December 19, 2011 passed in O.S.No.7944 of 2010 by the 'Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – V, Chennai' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the defendant therein has filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ' ['CPC' for short].

2. To be noted, originally the plaint was presented before this Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction on January 8, 2010 and numbered as C.S. No.32 of 2010. Later it was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai on account of pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S. No.7944 of 2010, and then made over to the Trial Court. The Trial Court decreed the Suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein has preferred this Appeal Suit viz., A.S. No.519 of 2013.

2.1. After the Trial Court’s Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.7944 of 2010, on January 31, 2012, one Smt.M.Baby filed a Suit in O.S. No.952 of 2012 on the file of First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against G.Ayyasami and three others, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The said G.Ayyasami is the appellant herein and also the defendant in O.S. No.7944 of 2010. In both the aforesaid Original Suits, the Suit Property is more or less the same. The Suit filed by Smt.M.Baby viz., O.S. No.952 of 2012 was partly decreed by negativing the claim for declaration and granting the relief of permanent injunction. Feeling aggrieved, G.Kulasekaran, the 3^rd defendant therein (O.S. No.952 of 2012), who is also the plaintiff in O.S. No.7944 of 2010 as well as the brother of the appellant herein, preferred an appeal in A.S. No.169 No.2016 before the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff therein (O.S. No.952 of 2012) namely Smt.M.Baby, filed a cross Appeal Suit in A.S. No.159 of 2017 before the same Appellate Court.

2.2. At the instance of the appellant herein, the Appeal Suits in A.S. No.169 No.2016 and A.S. No.159 of 2017 were withdrawn and transferred to this Court vide Common Order dated February 6, 2019 made in Tr. CMP. Nos.1004 and 1005 of 2017, and renumbered as A.S. Nos.437 and 436 of 2022 respectively.

2.3. Then, vide the Administrative Order dated January 7, 2023 made by the Honourable Acting Chief Justice of this Court, the said two Appeal Suits were tagged with the present Appeal Suit. Separate trials were conducted and separate Judgments were pronounced in the concerned Original Suits. The parties are also different. Keeping in mind the same, the Appeal Suits were heard simultaneously and separate Judgments are being pronounced today.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties herein will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit in O.S.No.7944 of 2010 i.e., the appellant herein will be referred to as the defendant and the respondent herein as the plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

4. The defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The Suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner dealing with or alienating the Suit Property. The Suit Property and some more properties were allotted to Natesa Naicker, who is the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant, vide registered Partition Deed dated May 17, 1937.

4.1. Natesa Naicker had two sons, Ganapathy and Dharmalingam, who after the demise of Natesa Naicker entered into registered Partition Deed dated February 25, 1983, whereby 'A' Schedule Properties therein were allotted to Ganapathy. 'A' Schedule Properties comprise a total extent of 4065 sq. ft. land along with the house thereon, and includes the Suit Property and some other properties. Ganapathy was in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' Schedule Properties. He passed away on July 11, 1992 leaving behind his wife – Lakshmiammal and his two sons – plaintiff and defendant. Thus, each of them became entitled to 1/3 share in the Suit Property.

4.2. Out of the