Judgment.-The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 4 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, North Arcot District, are the appellants herein.

2. A simple point has been made elaborately complicated involving considerable waste of judicial time by the failure of the Court as well as of the parties to pay attention to the actual legal provision applicable to the case.

3. The suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 5 herein for partition and separate possession of their 5/7th share in the suit properties. The plaint also refers to the fact that the suit properties have been alienated under Exhibit A-2, dated 22nd August, 1957 in favour of the first defendant by the third defendant acting for herself and as guardian of the respondents 1 to 5 as well as respondents 7 and 8 herein. The suit has also been valued under section 37 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, for cancellation of the said sale-deed itself, though the prayer in the suit is simply for partition and recovery of possession of the 5/7th share along with mesne profits from the appellants herein. The sixth respondent is the second wife of one Chinna Gopal Naidu, and respondnets 1 to 5,7 and 8 are the children of the sixth respondent through the said Chinna Gopal Naidu. The said Chinna Gopal Naidu had two sons by his first wife, Krishnaswami Naidu and Rajagopal Naidu. Exhibit A-1 dated 20th September, 1956 is styled as a release deed by the sixth respondent herein acting on her behalf and as the guardian of the minor children viz., respondents 1 to 5, 7 and 8, releasing their interest in the B schedule properties in the place of the A schedule properties which they had taken. The said A schedule properties are the lands which were subsequently alienated by the sixth respondent on her behalf and as guardian of the respondents 1 to 5, 7 and 8 under Exhibit A-2, dated 23rd August, 1957 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000 in favour of the first appellant herein. The suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 5 putting forward the contention that the said alienation was not binding on them, and, therefore, they were entitled to claim 5/7th share in the suit properties from the appellants herein. The second appellant came to be impleaded as a party because he claimed to be in possession of the properties as a result of a partition arrangement entered into between the first appellant and the second appellant they being brothers in 1958.The 5/7th share was claimed on the basis that respondents 1 to 5, 7 and 8 alone wereentitled to the entire properties, and thesixth respondent herself had no interest in the properties.

4. The second appellant herein filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first appellant. In the written statement, the second appellant contended that Exhibit A-2 sale-deed was valid and binding on the plaintiffs in the suit and the the said alienation was effected for the benefit of the minor children, viz., for their maintenance as well as for the purpose of purchasing a house for them and for doing a business for their benefit. The second appellant also contended that subsequently, he had spent a considerable amount of money by way of improvements to the properties in question, and in any event, the appellants would be entitled to the payment of the value of improvements as well as the refund of the amount of consideration they paid under Exhibit A-2; Subsequently, an additional written statement was filed by the second defendant on 15th November, 1971 in which it was contended that the suit was barred by limitation.

5. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

(1) Whether the sale deed dated 22nd August, 1957 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs ?

(2) Whether the second defendant isentitled to improvements and if so, to what amount?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits and if so, from what date and at what rate ?

The following additional issue was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document