IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12.10.2007 CORM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI Second Appeal Nos.314 & 315 of 1994, 41 & 42 of 1997 and 690 & 691 of 1998. S.A.Nos.314 and 315 of 1994: 1.L. Bakthavatsalam 2.L. Jeganathan 3.R. Manickammal 4.Santha Thiyagarajan 5.Deena Ranganathan 6.S. Padamalochini 7.M. Sagunthala (4 to 7 Daughter of Naidu) .. Appellants in both SAS/ Defendants 4,6, to 11 Respondents 4,6 to 11 Vs. 1. R. Alagiriswamy (died) 2. A. Alagiriswamy 3. V. Kalyanaswamy (died) 4. N.R. Soundararajan 5. L. Venkitupathy (died) 6. K. Muthu Vasikanathan 7. A. Murugesan 8. S. Manavalan 9. P. Lakshmanan 10.A. Karunakaran 11.K. Kandaswamy 12.M. Palaniappan 13.Parvathi (died) 14.T. Krishnan 15.C. Selvaraj 16.K. Sundarajan 17.G.Natarajan 18.V.Marudachalam 19.C. Raja 20.N.Muralidharan 21.P.Mariappan 22.Siva Bagiyam 23.Visalakshi 24.B. Senthamaraikannan 25.Ayyammal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 26.U. Sami Iyer 27.Sivabakiam 28.Selvaraj 29.Sivakami 30.Muraleedharan 31.Ramesh Babu 32.Ragubathi Raj 33.Kanna Prasad 34.R. Saraswathi 35.Lalithamani 36.Rajeswari 37.Vasanthamani 38.Rajakumar 39.Muralidharan 40.Amirtham Ammal 41.Balasubramanian (R.34 & 35 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased 13th respondent) (Vide order dated 12.9.03 in C.M.P.No.7185 to 7187/98) (R.36 brought on record as LR of deceased 1st respondent) (Vide order dated 15.2.2005 in C.M.P.Nos.2619 to 2621, 2623 to 2625/05) (R.37 to R.39 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased 5th respondent)(do and 14912 and 14913/98 (R.40 & 41 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased 3rd respondent) (Vide order dated 7.8.2006 in CMA 9148 and 9149/06) .. Respondents in both SAs/ Defendants S.A.Nos.41 and 42 of 1997: 1. Venkitupathy (died) 2. Vasanthamani 3. V.Rajkumar 4. V. Muralidharan (Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased sole appellant) (Vide order dated 20.1.2007 in CMP.3217 to 3222/05 .. Appellants in both SAS/ D5/R5 in S.A.No.41/1997 2nd Plaintiff/ 2nd Respondent / Appellant in S.A.No.42/1992 vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.L. Bakthavatsalam 2.L. Jeganathan 3.R. Manickammal 4.Santha Thiyagarajan 5.Deena Ranganathan 6.S. Padamalochini 7.M. Sakunthala 8.R. Alagiriswamy (died) 9.A. Alagiriswamy 10. V. Kalyanaswamy (died) 11. N.R. Soundararajan 12. K. Muthu Vasikanathan 13. A. Murugesan 14. S. Manavalan 15. P. Lakshmanan 16. A. Karunakaran 17. K. Kandaswamy 18. M. Palaniappan 19. Parvathi (died) 20. T. Krishnan 21. C. Selvaraj 22. K. Sundarajan 23. G.Natarajan 24. V.Marudachalam 25. C. Raja 26. N.Muralidharan 27. P.Mariappan 28. Siva Bagiyam 29. Visalakshi 30. B. Senthamaraikannan 31. Ayyammal 32. U. Sami Iyer 33. Sivabakiam 34. Selvaraj S/o. Late C.P. Nagamanikam Chettiar 35. Sivakami 36. Muraleedharan 37. Ramesh Babu 38. Ragubathi Raj 39. Kanna Prasad 40. K. Balasubramanian 41. Amirtham Ammal 42. Rajeswari (R.42 is brought on records as LR of deceased 8th respondent and R.40 and R.41 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased 10th respondent) (Vide order dated 29.1.2007 CMP.303 to 314/07 and 322 to 333/07 .. Respondents in both SAs/ Defendants/ Respondent D4,6 to 11/R4,6tO 11 Respondents Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent in S.A.41/97 Defendant/ Respondent / Respondents 12 to 39 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.A.No.690 of 1998: 1. Venkitupathy (died) 2. Vasanthamani 3. V.Rajkumar 4. V. Muralidharan (Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased sole appellant) (Vide order dated 20.1.2007 in C.M.P.9719 to 9724/06) .. Appellants in both SA/ 2nd Plaintiff/ 2nd Respondent in S.A.690/1998 vs. 1.V. Kalyanasami (died) 2.L. Bakthavatsalam 3.L. Jeganathan 4.R. Manickammal 5.Santha Thiyagarajan 6.Deena Ranganathan 7.S. Padamalochini 8.S. Sakunthala 9.A. Alagiriswamy 10.R. Alagiriswamy (died) 11.N.R. Soundararajan 12.Muthu Vasikanathan 13.A. Murugesan 14.S. Manavalan 15.P. Lakshmanan 16.A. Karunakaran 17.K. Kandaswamy 18.N. Palaniappan 19.Parvathi (Died) 20.T. Krishnan 21.S. Selvaraj 22.G.Natarajan 23.K.Sundararajan 24. V.Marudachalam 25. C. Raja 26. N.Muralidharan 27. P.Mariappan 28. Siva Bagiyam 29. Visalakshi 30. R. Chenthamarai Kannan 31. Ayyammal 32. U. Sami Iyer 33. Sivabakiam 34. Selvaraj 35. Muraleedharan 36. Ramesh Babu 37. Ragubathi Raj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 38. Kanna Prasad 39. Sivakkannu 40. K. Balasubramanian 41. Amirtham Ammal 42. Rajeswari (R.40 and 41 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased 1st defendant) (R.42 brought on record as LR of deceased 10th respondent) (Vide order dated 29.1.2007 in CMP.303 to 314/07 CMP.322 to 333/07 .. Respondents/ Appellants 1 and 3 to 40/ Plaintiff 1 and 3 to 8 Defendants 1 to 9 , 11 to 33 S.A.No.691 of 1998: 1. Venkitupathy (died) 2. Vasanthamani 3. V.Rajkumar 4. V. Muralidharan (Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased sole appellant) (Vide order dated 20.1.2007 in CMP.9719 to 9724/06 .. Appellants/ 5th Respondent in 5th Defendant 2nd Defendant vs. 1.V. Kalyanasami (died) 2.R. Alagiriswamy (died) 3.A. Alagiriswamy 4.M.S.Soundararajan 5.L. Bakthavatsalam 6.L. Jeganathan 7.R. Manickammal 8.Santha Thiyagarajan 9.Deena Ranganathan 10.S. Padamalochini 11.L. Sakunthala 12.Muthu Vasikanathan 13.A. Murugesan 14.S. Manavalan 15.P. Lakshmanan 16.A. Karunakaran 17.K. Kandaswamy 18.N. Palaniappan 19.Parvathi (died) 20.T. Krishnan 21.C. Selvaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22.K.Sundararajan 23.G.Natarajan 24. V.Marudachalam 25. C. Raja 26. N.Muralidharan 27. P.Mariappan 28. Siva Bagiyam 29. Visalakshi 30. R. Chenthamarai Kannan 31. Ayyammal 32. Y. Sami Ayyar 33. Sivabakiam 34. Selvaraj 35. Sivasami 36. Muraleedharan 37. Ramesh Babu 38. Ragubathi Raj 39. Kanna Prasad 40. K. Balasubramanian 41. Amirtham Ammal 42. Rajeswari ... Respondents/ Plaintiff/ appellant 1 & 3 to 8 Defendants 1 to 9, 11 to 33/ Respondents 1 and 3 to 40 (R.40 and 41 are brought on record as LRs. of deceased 1st defendant) (R.42 brought on record as LR of deceased 2nd respondent) (Vide order dated 29.1.2007 in CMP.303 to 314/07, 322 to 333/07) Respondents 41/ Defendants 41 Second Appeal Nos.314 of 1994 & 41 of 1997 are is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1993 made in A.S.No.194 of 1989 on the file of First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.1989 made in O.S.No.89 of 1983 on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Second Appeal Nos.315 of 1994 & 42 of 1997 are filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1993 made in A.S.No.195 of 1989 on the file of First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.1989 made in O.S.No.649 of 1985 on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Second Appeal Nos.690 and 691 of 1998 are filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1993 made in A.S.Nos.20 and 225 of 1992 on the file of Additional District Judge, Coimbatore reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.1989 made in O.S.Nos.649 of 1985 and 89 of 1983 on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For appellants in: Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan,Sr.Counsel SA.Nos.314&315 for M/s.Chitra Sampath of 1994 For appellants in: Mr. R.Muthukumaraswamy,Sr.Counsel SA.Nos.41&42 of for Mr.B.Raviraja 1997 For appellants in: Mr. P.Valliappan SA.Nos.690&691 of 1998. For respondents : Mr. T.M.Hariharan for R.1 & R.2 in SA.Nos. Mr. K.Venkatapathy,Sr.Counsel 314 & 315/1994. for Mr.K.V. Sundara Rajan for R.4 Mr.C.T. Prabhakar for R.12 Mr.G. Masilamani, Sr.Counsel for Mr.B. Rajednran for R.36 Mr.T.V. Krishnamachari for R.37 Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy,Sr.Counsel for Mr.B. Raviraja for R.38 Mr.V. Raghavachari for Mr.Seshu Balan Raja for R.39 Mr.K.Goviganesan for R.3 and R2 in S.A.315/94 Mr.R.C. Paul Kanagaraj for R. Mr.K. Surendranath for R.40 & R.41 Mr.Anand Venkatesan for R.6 to R.11, R.14 to 17,19,20,22,28,29 and 31 to 33 in S.A.315/94 Mr. Sathish Parasaran for R 30 For respondents in: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,Sr.Counsel SA.Nos.41&42/97 M/s.Chitra Sampath for R.1 to R.7 Mr.T.M. Hariharan for R.8 Mr.R. Muthulingam for R.12 to 17, 20 to 23, 25, 26, 28 and 34 to 37 in SA.No.41/97 and for R.11 to 16, 19 to 22, 24, 26 to 28 and 33 to 37 in SA.No.42/97. For respondents in: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,Sr.Counsel SA.Nos.690 & 691/98 M/s.Chitra Sampath for R.2 to R.8 in SA.No.690/1998 & R.5 to R.11 in SA.No.691/98. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGEMENT Nearly 93 items of properties which include immovable properties situated in Uppilipalayam Village, Kalapatti Village, Singanallur Village, Vellakinaru Village and Kurudampalayam Village, all at Coimbatore District, originally belonged to one R.Venkitusamy Naidu, who died leaving behind him, 2 sons viz., R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu and R.V.Rangasamy Naidu and 5 daughters, viz., Ranganayakiammal, Thayammal, Krishnammal, Nagammal and Ammaniammal. 2. R.V.Rangasamy Naidu died on 01.06.1955, leaving behind him, his wife Krishnammal without any other legal heirs. His wife Mrs. Krishnammal also died on 30.04.1977. 3. The other son of R.Venkitusamy Naidu, viz., R.V. Lakshmiah Naidu also died on 05.04.1958, leaving behind him his 4 sons, viz., L. Bakthavatsalu, L. Venkatapathy, L. Jagannathan and L. Ramasamy, out of whom, the first three are the defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.89 of 1983 and plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.649 of 1985. 4. One of the sons of R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu, viz., L.Ramasamy died leaving behind him his wife Manickammal and his daughters Mrs. Santha Thiyagarajan, Theena Ranganathan, M.Padhamalochini and S.Sakunthala, who are defendants 7 to 11 in O.S.No.89 of 1983 and plaintiffs 4 to 8 in O.S.No.649 of 1985. 5. One of the daughters of Venkitusamy Naidu, viz., Ranganayaki Ammal's son A.Alagirisamy, is the first defendant in both the suits. 6. Likewise, the other daughter of Venkitusamy Naidu, viz., Thayammal's son Kalyanasamy, is the second defendant in both the suits. 7. The other daughter of Venkitusamy Naidu, viz., Krishnammal's son R.Alagirisamy, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1983 and third defendant in O.S.No.649 of 1985. 8. The other daughter of Venkitusamy Naidu, viz., Nagammal's son N.R. Soundararajan, is the third defendant in O.S.No.89 of 1983 and 4th defendant in O.S.No.649 of 1985. 9. R.Alagirisamy, son of one of the sisters of R.V. Lakshmiah Naidu and R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, filed the suit in O.S.No.89 of 1983 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore for declaration and partition of title in respect of 1/3rd share in the properties mentioned in Schedule-I or 1/4th share in the properties mentioned in Schedule-II and for separate possession. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. The defendants 4 to 11 in the said suit, viz., O.S.No.89 of 1983 have filed the other suit in O.S.No.649 of 1985 for declaration and injunction that they are absolutely entitled to the suit properties, thereby denying the claim of the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1983, to have a share in the same. 11. The suit properties involved in both the suits are relating to 9 items of properties comprised in: (i)G.S.No.181 - 4.50 acres (ii)G.S.No.183/1 - 1.69 acres (iii)G.S.No.184/1 - 3.20 acres (iv)G.S.No.185 - 5.24 acres (v)G.S.No.187 - 4.62 acres (vi)G.S.No.189 - 4.17 acres (vii)G.S.No.190 - 5.41 acres (viii)G.S.No.191 - 4.44 acres (ix)G.S.No.192 - 3.52 acres Total extent -36.79 acres. 12. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1983 was that R.V.Rangasamy Naidu died on 01.06.1955 without male or female issues and he left behind his widow Krishnammal. According to him, R.V.Rangasamy Naidu has left a registered Will dated 10.05.1955, by which he has bequeathed his properties to be enjoyed by his wife Krishnammal during her life time without any power of alienation and after her life time, the properties should vest with the sons of his sisters, viz., the plaintiff as well as defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.89 of 1983. It is stated that the original Will is with the 12th defendant in the suit, viz., M.V. Ramachandra Naidu, who is said to have been appointed as Executor and the original Will would be produced later. 12(a). It is the further case of the plaintiff that, after the death of Krishnammal on 30.04.1977, even though the plaintiff as well as defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.89 of 1983 are entitled to 1/4th share equally as per the Will, defendants 4 to 11 in O.S.No.89 of 1983, who are the legal heirs of another brother of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, viz., R.V. Lakshsmiah Naidu, claiming themselves to inherit the property after the demise of R.V. Lakshmaya Naidu and R.V. Rangasamy Naidu, have filed a suit in O.S.No.2037 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore for declaration and injunction that they are solely entitled to the properties. The said suit was subsequently transferred to Sub-Court, Coimbatore and renumbered as O.S.No.649 of 1985. 12(b). According to the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1983, apart from his 1/3rd share, defendants 1 to 3 have shares in the property, each entitled to 1/3rd share and defendants 4 to 11 have no right. Further, according to him, defendants 4 to 11 cannot have any claim over the property, since the two brothers, viz., R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu and R.V.Rangasamy Naidu have divided among themselves as early as in the year 1932 and enjoyed their respective shares separately and Item No.1 to 3 and 6 to 9 of the properties were allotted to the share of R.V. Rangasamy Naidu and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ item Nos.4 and 5 were purchased by R.V. Rangasamy Naidu, long after partition with his brother R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu. 12(c). It was his further case that by virtue of the Will executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, he was enjoying the properties absolutely and the previous partition in the year 1932 between R.V.Rangasamy Naidu and his brother R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu has been stated categorically in the Will dated 10.5.1955. It was the further case of the plaintiff that after the death of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, his brother R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu and his sons, namely, defendants 4 to 6 tried to trespass into the properties and that was resisted by the wife of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, namely, Krishnammal, who has preferred a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was the case of the said R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu and his sons that they along with R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, were members of a Hindu joint family and the said Krishnammal being the wife of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu was having only a right of maintenance and the proceedings filed under section 145 Cr.P.C. was decided against the said Krishnammal and the revision filed before this Court was also dismissed. 12(d). It was stated that the said Krishnammal has filed a suit in O.S.No.71 of 1958 for declaration of her title in respect of properties as per the Will executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu dated 10.5.1955. The executor of the said Will who is the 12th defendant in O.S.No.89 of 1983, by name, M.V.Ramachandra Naidu was also made as 5th defendant in O.S.No.71 of 1958, apart from the defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.89 of 1983 and their another brother Ramasamy Naidu. There was a compromise arrived at between Krishnammal and the defendants, by which Krishnammal was given 7 items of properties absolutely and the amounts mentioned in other three items, viz., Item Nos.8, 9 and 13 and she has given up her right in all other properties including the properties described in the schedule of the present suits, viz., O.S.No.89 of 1983 and O.S.No.649 of 1985. 12(e). The plaintiff would also state that in terms of the said compromise, a decree was passed on 21.7.1958. Further, according to the plaintiff, the said compromise is not valid as the legatees were not parties to the said compromise. That apart, Krishnammal was having only life interest in the properties and therefore, she was not entitled to enter into such a compromise and the decree is not binding on the estate and Krishnammal had no right to give up her right in respect of the present suit properties. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that when Krishnammal abandoned her right under the compromise, he filed the suit in O.S.No.36 of 1963 for declaration that Krishnammal had only life interest without the power of alienation and the plaintiff was entitled to vested right in the properties under the Will stated to have been executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu dated 10.5.1955. In that suit, apart from the said Krishnammal and Ramachandra Naidu, the executor of the Will of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, the defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.89 of 1983 and their brother Ramasamy Naidu as well as the sister of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, viz., Ranganayagi ammal were also made parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12(f). It is further stated by plaintiff that pending the said suit in O.S.No.36 of 1963, Krishnammal has sold many properties retaining only two items of properties which are (i) Survey No.467 (0.82 acres out of 0.98 acres) and (ii) Survey No.466 (3.60 acres out of 6.02 acres) which are not forming part of the suit properties in the present suit. It was in those circumstances, a compromise was entered in that suit and accordingly, a compromise decree was passed on 18.2.1974 wherein the said two items of properties retained by Krishnammal were declared in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the said compromise has not impeached the validity of the Will executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu and according to the plaintiff, the terms of compromise confirmed the execution of the Will by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu. The plaintiff has also denied the allegations of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.649 of 1985 who are the defendants 4 to 11 in O.S.No.89 of 1983. According to the plaintiff, the said defendants 4 to 11 are in possession of the present suit properties without any title and therefore their possession should be treated as unlawful and in view of the same, the present suit for declaration and partition was filed. 13. The defendants 4 to 11 who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.649 of 1985 have filed written statement. While the relationship between the parties are admitted, it was the case of the said defendants that there was no division between R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu and R.V.Rangasamy Naidu. The Will said to have been executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu was also denied, and according to them, on the death of the said R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, the surviving coparcener, viz., his brother R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu took all the properties by survivorship. According to the defendants 4 to 11, R.V.Rangasamy Naidu was seriously ill, suffering from cancer and the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 should have obtained the signature in the Will by undue influence, coercion and fraud and the Will is not genuine. It was also their case that inasmuch as R.V.Rangasamy Naidu and his brother R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu were not divided, there was no necessity on the part of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu to execute such a Will. It was their further case that the recitals stated in the said Will about the oral partition in the year 1932 between R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu and R.V.Rangasamy Naidu are false. It was also their further case that the Will alleged to have been executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu has never come into existence immediately after the death of the said R.V.Rangasamy Naidu and therefore, it is only an after-thought. 13(a). It was their further case that R.V.Rangasamy Naidu was taken to Bombay for treatment and when he was taken to Coimbatore, his condition was worse due to brain tumor and practically, he was unconscious and in that unconscious stage, he was again taken to Bombay where he died and therefore, R.V.Rangasamy Naidu was not in a position to execute any Will and subsequent to the death of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu, R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu was in enjoyment of all the properties. It was their further case that Krishnammal, wife of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu has made a false case under Section 145 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C. which was dismissed and the High Court has also confirmed the same. It was also their case that inasmuch as Krishnammal has taken the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. upto the High Court and failed, the plaintiff as well as the defendants 1 to 3 are estopped and debarred from questioning their title to the properties. It was also stated by them that even in the earlier suit in O.S.No.71 of 1958 it was their contention that the Will alleged to have been executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu is not valid and true and that only after the parties came to know that the Will was not genuine, Krishnammal gave up all her rights and a compromise was entered into. 13(b). It was also their case that in fact in the said case, Krishnammal has also claimed an alternative claim for partition which was given up by her. The executor of the alleged Will viz., Ramachandra Naidu was also a party to the said proceedings and a consenting party to the compromise and these defendants have been in possession of the properties. Even though the legatees were not parties in the earlier suit, the predecessor-in-interest, viz., Krishnammal and the executor of the Will were parties and therefore, the decision taken in the said suit is binding upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. According to the said defendants, the compromise was acted upon as admitted by the plaintiff himself and in fact, as per the compromise, the said Krishnammal who got certain properties has sold those properties and the alienees of the said properties have not been impleaded as parties. It was their further case that inasmuch as in O.S.No.36 of 1963 filed by the present plaintiff himself, he has accepted for a compromise by which there was a declaration in respect of two items of properties, the plaintiff is deemed to have given up his claim or title on the basis of the will. Therefore, according to the said defendants, by virtue of the compromise in the said suits, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 have lost all their rights in the properties. It was also denied that the compromise decree in O.S.No.71 of 1958 has nothing to do with the validity of the Will. It was also their case that the said Krishnammal died in the year 1977, but the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 have been fighting against her till her death and in many of the proceedings their right and possession over the properties have been negatived. 14. It was on the basis of the said pleadings raised by the defendants 4 to 11 in the written statement, the said defendants have filed their suit in O.S.No.649 of 1985 for declaration as stated above and that was defended by the defendants in the said suit including the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 83 raising claims similar to the one made in the plaint in O.S.No.89 of 1983. 15. The 12th defendant who is said to be the executor of the Will of R.V.Rangasamy Naidu dated 10.5.1955 has also filed a written statement. Even though he is not concerned with the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, in the written statement he has stated that the Will has never been acted upon and the properties have not been put in possession as stated in the will. According to him, he was not a consenting party to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ various suits in which compromise was entered into and therefore, it was his categorical stand that he cannot be attributed to such knowledge. 16. It was with the above said pleadings, the parties went on to trial. Both the suits were taken together for trial by the learned trial Judge who has taken the plaintiffs in O.S.No.649 of 1985 who are defendants 4 to 11 in O.S.89 of 1983 as plaintiffs' side witnesses and the defendants therein including the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1983 as defendants' side witnesses and proceeded with the trial, by framing various issues including (i)whether the will dated 10.5.1955 stated to have been executed by R.V.Rangasamy Naidu is true, valid and acted upon? (ii)whether there was a previous oral partition between R.V.Rangasamy Naidu and his brother R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu? (iii)Whether R.V.Lakshmiah Naidu has inherited the properties on the basis of survivorship after the death of his brother R.V.Rangasamy Naidu? (iv)Whether the decision in the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. will be an estoppel against the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.89 of 1983? (v)Whether the compromise decree obtained in O.S.No.71 of 1958 is collusive, void and not binding on the plaintiffs? (vi)Whether the suit in O.S.No.89 of 1983 is barred by res judicata in view of the compromise decree in O.S.No.36 of 1963? (vii)Whether it is true that the first defendant in O.S.No.89 of 1983 has partitioned himself? (viii)Whether the suit in O.S.No.89 of 1983 is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties? (ix)Whether the suit was properly valued? (x)Whether the defendants 12 to 34 are proper parties? (xi)Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1983 is entitled to a decree for partition; if so, what are all the properties to be partitioned and what is his share? (xii)Whether the suit in O.S.No.89 of 1983 is affected