NARAYANAN Vs. KUPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two second appeals are focussed by the original plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif Court at Uthiramerur in O.S.No.69 of 2006 and also as against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 in A.S.No.20 of 2010 by the same appellate Judge modifying the judgment and decree of the Munsif Court in O.S.No.97 of 2006. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two Second Appeals would run thus:

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, so to say the agreement holder in both the appeals, would put forth and set forth his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus: THE law is well settled that even if a co-owner enters into an agreement to sell with a third party relating to his share and also in excess of his share, then it is for the Court to order specific performance of the respective share of the proposed seller and equity has to be worked out in the process of partitioning such joint properties and at any rate such agreement to sell cannot be held as void and bad in law as held by the first appellate Court erroneously.