PANDARINATHAN Vs. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filed by the respondents in S.A.No.1658 of 2000 to review the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.B.K.Vasuki in S.A.No.1658 of 2000 dated 07.08.2015. Since the Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.B.K.Vasuki retired, this review application has been posted before me.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows:

(3.) The properties which are the subject matter of the four suits originally belonged to one Krishnan and the plaintiffs and the defendants in all the four suits are his male and female descendants. All the four suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 26.02.1998. The trial court has found that the settlement deed dated 08.01985 (Ex.A3) is a valid document. It also found that the partition arrangement (Ex.B6) was not true and enforceable and not binding on either Rukmaniammal or Ramasamy or Vijayaraghavan and as such Govindammal/plaintiff in O.S.No.57 of 1990 was not entitled to claim title over the property. It also found that the power of attorney (Ex.B5) which was said to have been executed in favour of Pandarinathan and Madhavan was not proved and the same was not binding on either Andalammal or on Varalakshmi. It also found that Pandarinathan and Madhavan have no right over the property. It also found that the said Muthukrishnan did not prove Ex.B16 Will. Accordingly, the trial court has dismissed the suits in O.S.Nos.76 of 1988 and 57 of 1990 and decreed the suits in O.S.Nos.58 and 59 of 1990.