The court found the family arrangement invalid due to antedating and fraud, while upholding a holographic will that excluded one party due to familial discord.

JUDGMENT :

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. A.S.Nos.772 and 1003 of 2005 have been preferred against a common judgment made in O.S.Nos.74 and 73 of 2004 dated 31.12.2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem. A.S.No.772 of 2005 has been preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.74 of 2004 which was dismissed by the trial court. A.S.No.1003 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2004 which was also dismissed by the trial court by the aforesaid common judgment dated 31.12.2004.

2.A.S.No.856 of 2025 has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.116 of 2004 which was also dismissed by the trial court by a judgment and decree dated 24.03.2025. To be noted, the plaintiff in both O.S.Nos.73 and 116 of 2004 is one and the same person.

3.O.S.No.73 of 2004 has been preferred seeking declaration to declare that the family arrangement dated 19.05.1971 is not valid. O.S.No.74 of 2004 has been filed for partition of the suit property into 15 shares and to allot 8 shares to the plaintiffs therein. O.S.No.116 of 2004 has been preferred seeking preliminary decree for partition and for permanent injunction.

4.Since the issues in all the three appeal suits are connected with each other and the suit properties in the above three suits are also connected to each other, this Court was inclined to hear the above three appeal suits together and these three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. In this common judgment, the parties herein shall be referred to as per their rankings in the trial court in a judgment in O.S.No.74 of 2004.

5.The suit filed before the trial court in O.S.No.74 of 2004 is taken as a lead case in this common judgment.

6.The facts as discernible from the pleadings of the parties are as follows:

(i)The plaintiffs and first defendant are sons of the second defendant. The third defendant is the mother of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and first defendant and she is the wife of second defendant Mr.M.S.P.Rajes. The 4^th defendant is the daughter of second and third defendants. The 5^th and 6^th defendants are the son and daughter respectively of the first defendant Mr.Vijayan Rajes.

(ii)One Mr.M.S.Periasamy Nadar, a Coffee planter owned a vast estate in the Shevaroy Hills in the then State of Madras which includes the present States of Karnataka and Kerala. His two sons are one Mr.M.S.P.Rajes and Mr.M.S.P.Rajah. As per the partition deeds dated 06.09.1954 and 14.07.1954, the properties in State of Madras and Travancore-Cochin were partitioned between Mr.M.S.Periasamy Nadar, Mr.M.S.P.Rajes and Mr.M.S.P.Rajah. After the death of Mr.M.S.Periasamy Nadar on 21.01.1955, a partition deed was entered into between Thangammal (wife of M.S.Periasamy Nadar) and her sons Mr.M.S.P.Rajah and Mr.M.S.P.Rajes on 11.10.1956. The suit properties were allotted to Mr.M.S.P.Rajes, namely the second defendant herein. Later, there was a partition on 15.10.1956 between the second defendant and his two minor sons, namely plaintiffs herein. At the time of aforesaid partition, only both the plaintiffs were born to the second defendant. In the said partition, the second defendant Mr.M.S.P.Rajes was allotted to A-Schedule properties, Mr.Dayalan Rajes was allotted to B-Schedule and Mr.Mohan Rajes was allotted to C Schedule. Similarly, on 16.10.1956, there was a partition between the second defendant and plaintiffs in respect of the properties situated in Travancore-Cochin, wherein the first plaintiff Mr.Dayalan Rajes was