Deed actually a gift in favour of daughter.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.57 of 1990, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, is the first appellant.

2. Suit filed by her was one for partition claiming one-fifth share in the plaint schedule items and also to direct the defendants to put her in possession of the share so allotted. Consequent relief as to payment of profits was also sought for. She also prayed for costs of suit.

3. Material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:

Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are sisters, being daughters of late Appasami Naidu. All the schedule items belong to Appasami Naidu either ancestral or by purchase. He had no male issues. With a view to escape from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and also to avoid surrendering surplus lands to the Government, Appasami Naidu brought about a partition deed dated 30.9.1970 between himself, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. Under this partition, Appasami Naidu purported to divide all his properties, treating them as joint properties of himself and his daughters. Separate schedule of properties were given regarding allotment to Appasami Naidu and all his daughters. Proceedings were initiated against late Appasami Naidu under the Land Reforms Act. Appasami Naidu contended that his holding was within the ceiling limits and that he had no property to surrender. This contention was not accepted by the Authorised Officer. As per his order dated 5. 1974, the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 was held to be a void document, on the ground that it was brought about to defeat the provisions of the Act, and all the properties were treated as the properties of late Appasami Naidu. Appasami Naidu filed an appeal in Sub-Court, Coimbatore, in L.T.A. No.270 of 1974, without any success. The appeal was dismissed on 20.2.1975. When a revision was preferred before this Court in C.R.P.NO.1101 of 1975, which also met with the same fate. It is contended that as a result of the Order passed by the Authorised Officer, as confirmed by the Sub Court and this Court, Appasami Naidu surrendered the excess land to the Government. The lands so surrendered were included in Survey Nos.234, 235, 237/ 1 and 626/2. Shortly thereafter, Appasami Naidu died. It is said that at the time of his death, the schedule properties belonged to Appasami Naidu. He is survived by plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 as his heirs, and they succeeded to the plaint schedule properties. There was no partition between plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 after the death of Appasami Naidu. It is further averred that the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 was brought about by Appasami Naidu for a specific purpose of circumventing the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, and it was never acted upon. It was also held to the inoperative by the Authorities under the Act. While surrendering the Lands, Appasami Naidu not only surrendered the properties allotted to his share but also surrendered the properties allotted to his daughters under the deed. According to the plaintiff, the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 is non-est, and the plaintiff ignores the same. It is further averred that the partition deed is not a transfer, and it is not necessary to have the same set aside.

.4. After the death of Appasami Naidu, plaintiff and first defendant requested defendants 2 to 4 to have an amicable settlement. They did not agree for the same. Therefore, first defendant, after issuing notice to all the other sisters, filed O.S.No.122 of 1986, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur. Though the plaintiff was made a defendant, she also shared the expenses with the first defendant. O.S.No.122 of 1986 was listed for trial on 8. 1989, and the same was adjourned on two occasions, for reporting settlement. First defendant thereafter, in collusion with the other defendants, allowed the suit be dismissed for default. Even after the dismissal of O.S.No.122 of 1986, defendants 1 to 4 had been assuring the plaintiff that they