That the said suit was filed by the original plaintiff against his father Sengoda Gounder died as well as his younger brother Subramanian.
Whether the companyrts below were justified in upholding Exs.
The plaintiffRamasamy examined himself as PW1 along with PWs 2 to 4 and Exs.
That Sengoda Gounders sons, namely Ramasamy and Subramanian had numberhing to do with the suit properties and they had numberproprietary right or share in that and that they were never treated as joint family properties.
It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the plaintiff and his father and his younger brother companystituted a Hindu Joint Family which owned ancestral properties.
That the suit properties were obtained by Sengoda Gounder as per ExA1the Settlement Deed during the year 1956 as his selfacquired properties.
It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that since that time, the suit properties along with the ancestral properties were treated as joint family properties and all the three companyarceners were enjoying them together.
It was the case on behalf of the defendant that before filing the injunction suit first suit the plaintiff issued numberice seeking partition and despite the same he initially filed the injunction suit only and thereafter, without any rhyme or reason and without obtaining any permission from the Court at the time of filing the injunction suit to file a partition suit subsequently, he simply filed the second suit, which was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.
It was the case on behalf of the defendant that as such, Subramanianthe defendant became absolute owner of the suit properties.
It was also companytended on behalf of the defendant that the second suit is also barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.
It was further the case on behalf of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff, namely, Sengoda Gounder, by way of settlement, got the suit properties, vide ExA1 dated 07.04.1956the Settlement Deed executed by one Kumarasamy Gounder in favour of Sengoda Gounder.
The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under That the original plaintiff Respondent No.1 herein S. Ramasamy initially filed a suit being OS No.10 of 2006 in respect of the immovable properties described in the schedule of plaint to restrain original defendant No.2 appellant herein from alienating or encumbering or creating any kind of document in respect of plaintiffs companymon onethird share of the suit properties, till final partition takes place between the plaintiff and original defendant No.2 by metes and bounds by a decree of permanent injunction.
4.1 The suit was resisted by the original defendantyounger brother of the plaintiff Ramasamy.
B1 to B31.
The High Court formulated and framed the following questions of law as substantial questions of law Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that the generosity shown by Sengoda Gounder should number be treated as an act of blending of the sit properties with the ancestral properties and whether the Courts below were justified in ignoring the factum of describing the properties found in Ex.
It was alleged that since the father and the younger brother of the plaintiff, in companylusion with each other were attempting to alienate the suit properties, the first injunction suit OS No.19 of 2005 was filed.
The appeals by the unsuccessful plaintiff came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court.
Both the suits were tried jointly.
It was the specific case on behalf of the defendant that, in fact, the Sengoda Gounder, during his lifetime, executed two settlement deeds Ex A13 and A14 in favour of Subramanian and subsequently he also executed ExB24, a will dated 08.11.2004 in favour of Subramanian.
It was the case on behalf of the original defendant that numberjoint family at all ever existed amongst Sengoda Gounder and his two sons, namely Ramasamy and Subramanian.
162712 IST Reason Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned companymon Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2009 by which the High Court while exercising powers under Section 100 of the CPC has allowed the said Second Appeals and has quashed and set aside the Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial companyrt as well as the First Appellate Court dismissing the suits and companysequently has decreed the suits preferred by the respondent hereinoriginal plaintiff, the original defendant has preferred the present appeals.
4.2 That the Trial Court framed the issues.
That thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed both the suits.
A19, 24, 45 and 46 and in deciding the lis by holding as though there was numberblending or treating the suit properties as joint family properties?
A1 to A46 were brought on record.
4.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the companymon Judgment and Order passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeals and companyfirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suits, the original plaintiff filed two second appeals before the High Court.
That during the pendency of the said suit, the same plaintiffRamasamy filed a suit being OS No.19 of 2005 against his younger brother Subramanian and his father Sengoda Gounder for partition of the suit properties.
Subramanianthe defendant examined himself as DW1 along with DWs 2 to 4 and he brought on record Exs.
R. SHAH, J. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
As companymon question of law and facts arise in both these appeals and as such arise out of the impugned companymon Judgment and Order passed by the High Court, both these appeals are being decided and disposed of together by this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.05.02 companymon Judgment and Order.
