VINAYAKAMURTHI Vs. T MAHENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINAYAKAMURTHI , the 9th defendant in the Original Suit No. 347 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore is the appellant in S.A. Nos. 1080 and 1081 of 2009. Jeeva, K.T. Sri. Manickam and K.T. Gayathri, the defendants 4 to 6 in the above said original suit, are the appellants in S.A. No. 435 of 2010. Jeeva, the fourth defendant in the original suit is the sole appellant in S.A. No. 436 of 2010. A. Srinivasan and A. Thiagarajan, defendants 7 and 8 in the original suit, are the appellants in S.A. No. 755 of 2009. T. Mahendran, the plaintiff in the Original Suit is the Cross -Appellant in the Cross Objection No. 45 of 2011 in S.A. No. 755 of 2009. T. Mahendran, who figures as the first respondent in all the second appeals, namely S.A. Nos. 1080, 1081/2009, 435, 436/2010 and 755/2009, who is also the Cross -Appellant in Cross Objection No. 45/2011 in S.A. No. 755/2009, as the sole plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 347/2004 on the file of the trial court, namely the court of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore: 1) for partition and separate possession claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties; 2) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession of the suit properties; 3) for a declaration that he and the defendant 1 to 3 in the said suit are the legal heirs of deceased Thangavel and 4) for costs of the suit. The learned trial judge, after trial, dismissed the suit in its entirety with cost by his judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006.

(2.) AS against the decree of the trial court dated 14.11.2006 dismissing the suit, the plaintiff Mahendran filed A.S. No. 18 of 2008. T. Suseela, Tmt. Chitra Latha and Tmt. Shanmugavalli (defendants 1 to 3 in the original suit) filed a cross -objection supporting the case of the plaintiff and claiming 1/4th share to each one of them in the suit properties. Similarly, Jeeva (the 4th defendant) filed a cross -objection challenging the finding of the trial court that the first defendant Suseela alone was the legally wedded wife of deceased Thangavel. The appeal filed by the plaintiff as A.S. No. 18/2008 and the two cross -objections filed by defendants 1 to 3 and by the 4th defendant respectively, were heard jointly and disposed of by a common judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 04.02.2009, wherein A.S. No. 18/2008 and the cross -objection filed therein by the defendants 1 to 3 were allowed in part and the cross objection filed by the 4th defendant Jeeva was dismissed and the suit was decreed in part granting the relief of declaration declaring the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 5 and 6 were the legal heirs of Thangavel entitled to equal shares in his properties and directing division of the suit properties into six equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and each one of the defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 5 and 6 and dismissing the cross -objection filed by the 4th defendant Jeeva.

(3.) SINCE all the appeals and cross objection have been filed against the common judgment and decree passed in the appeals and cross objections filed before the lower appellate court arising out of one and the same suit, all the second appeals and cross objection are jointly heard and are being disposed of by a common judgment. In order to avoid confusion and for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the original suit.