JUDGMENT: This second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Periyar District at Erode made in A.S.No.169 of 1986, dated 25.10.1988 confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.9.1986 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam made in O.S.No.61 of 1985.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint mentioned properties with the following averments. The first plaintiff and first defendant were sisters and were daughters of one Pachiappa Nadar while the defendants 2 and 3 were the sons of the first defendant. The second plaintiff and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were the daughters and sons of one Palaniammal who was another daughter of Pachiappa Nadar, who has got two sons by name Meyappan and Kunjaram. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 have brother by name Ravindran who were not added as parties since they were involved in a murder case. Pachiappa Nadar died under suspicious circumstances and the defendants who were enemically disposed with Meyyappan and Kunjaram had implicated them for the cause of the death of Pachiappa Nadar, in a murder case. Pachiappa Nadar and Chenniappa Nadar had divided the ancestral property on 26.3.1941 and ‘A’ Schedule properties were allotted to Pachiappa Nadar. Pachiappa Nadar got the property along with his sons and daughters jointly. After partition, Pachiappa Nadar and his sons with their joint efforts and joint labour earned and purchased some properties and they sold some of the properties to the third parties and with that income they purchased some other properties from third parties and continued the joint family for ever until his death. Pachiappa Nadar executed a lease deed in favour of his sons in the month of September, 1980 in respect of the suit properties and put them in possession. As he was bodily in-firm and could not attend his daily works, his sons and sons-in-laws gave proper medical treatment, at various places and inspite of best treatment he could not recover and regain his conscience and subsequently died. When he was in bed and when his sons and son-in-laws were away the defendants have got some documents in their favour defeating the rights of the sons and other daughters of Pachiappa Nadar. Those documents were forged and got up when he has, lost his conscience and senses. The documents dated 17.11.1982 and the subsequent Will dated 5.1.1983 were invalid and not to be enforced against the plaintiffs and others. The defendants cannot be allowed with the said documents in their favour against the plaintiffs. Since Meyyappan and Kunjaram were in jail undergoing the imprisonment, there is scrample for possession. The defendants managed to disturb the families of Meyyappan and Kunjaram with police influence. Hence the plaintiffs have got right over the property and the partition of their share have to be done at this stage subject to the rights of the sons of Pachiappa Nadar depending upon the murder case against them. Hence, the suit might be allowed.

3. In the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 3, it is alleged as follows: Meyyappan and Kunjaram, the sons of Pachiappa Nadar have set up the plaintiffs to file the suit. Pachiappa Nadar was murdered on 7.2.1983 by his two sons and his daughter-in-law and grandson Ravindranathan. Meyyappan, Kunjaram and Ravindranathan were sentenced to life imprisonment in S.C.No.103 of 1984 before the District Court, Erode and undergoing sentence. They filed an appeal before the High Court. Meyyappan and Kunjaram created bogus lease deeds and filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 1983 claiming leasehold rights. The said two sons and grandson of Pachiappa Nadar were necessary parties to the suit. The description of the properties was erroneous and vague. The said description is not sufficient to identify or locate the suit property. The resurvey numbers were not given, and thus without the present extent, the relief of parti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document