The provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act do not invalidate prior registered Sale Deeds, and delay in filing appeals must be substantiated by sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties which were granted to one Mayanna who was the father of defendant No.1 and the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4. The said Mayanna died intestate and subsequently, his wife also died.

3. Further, the case of the plaintiffs is that defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4, though were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties under the joint family status, have sold several properties in favour of defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 by executing the Sale Deed in their favour and the said Sale Deeds were not executed for the benefit and welfare of the joint family. Thus, the said Sale Deeds were not binding on the plaintiffs and no legal rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs could be defeated by defendant Nos.1 and 2, as the said sale deeds are illegal and void under law.

4. Further, defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed partition suit after knowing the alleged transactions by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.46/1997 and the said suit was compromised on 09.11.1998 and the decree was also passed in that respect. However, the plaintiffs, being the equal share holders in respect of suit schedule properties, were not arrayed as parties to the said partition suit. Since the plaintiffs were in joint possession and enjoyment of item No.4 of the suit schedule properties along with defendant Nos.1 to 4, the Sale Deeds and Gift Deeds were not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of their lawful 1/5^th share each over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.80/2009 for partition and separate possession.

5. After service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 remained absent. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, legal representatives of defendant No.5 and defendant No.7 were placed ex parte. Defendant No.4 has appeared in person. Defendant Nos.6 & 8 and defendant Nos.9 to 11, have contested the matter through their counsel. However, only defendant Nos.9 to 11 have filed written statement, denying the plaint averments.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit on the ground that, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters born before 09.09.2005 would be coparceners only when the coparcener dies and the succession opens and until then there is no devolution of interest. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have filed a suit during the lifetime of defendant No.1 and as such, they have no right to file a suit for partition and separate possession.

7. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, dismissed I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the plaintiffs for condoning the delay of 705 days in filing the appeal and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

9. I have heard Sri.Abubacker Shafi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri G.Manivannan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8/defendant Nos.6 to 11.

10. The primary contention of the plaintiffs/appellants is that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit and have failed to consider that the Sale Deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 8 were not for the benefit or welfare of the joint family. He further contended that defendant Nos.3 and 4 compromised the suit in O.S.No.46/1997 on 09.11.1998 wi