The validity of the sale deed and the maintainability of the suit without challenging the sale deed were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code of second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 312. 1997, made in A.S.No.84 of 1994 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.1994 made in O.S.No.874 of 1989 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

2. The suit was filed seeking partition of the suit property into three equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff.

.3. The first respondent/plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the suit property bearing T.S.No.752/5 measuring 1.46 acres at Kalapatty Village in Coimbatore Taluk, absolutely

.belonged to the plaintiffs mother Chinamarakkal. She died on 02.03.1982. The defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff, who are the daughters and son of Chinamarakkal respectively. As she died intestate, each one is entitled to one-third share in the suit property. The third defendant is none other than the husband of the second defendant. On 13.06.1961 Chinamarakkal executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the third defendant for a sum of Rs.1,500/-and possession was delivered to the third defendant. Inspite of the fact that Chinamarakkal was ready to redeem the mortgage, the third defendant postponed the matter with an ulterior motive to squat upon the suit property as far as possible. The third defendant created make-believe sale deed dated 25.07.1966 for a sum of Rs.1500/-collusively with the other defendants. Chinamarakkal never executed any sale deed in favour of the third defendant in respect of the suit property. The revenue records still stand in the name of Chinamarakkal. The so called sale deed is nothing but a product of fraud, deception, forgery and impersonation. It is an invalid, illegal, inoperative, unenforceable and abinitio void document. With the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff seeks for one-third share in the suit property.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 jointly filed written statement at the first instance. They have contended in their written statement that Chinamarakkal, who was the absolute owner of the suit property sold away the same to the third defendant for discharging the mortgage debt. Chinamarakkal mortgaged her properties in S.F.No.273/1 measuring 1.9-1/2 cents and in S.F.No.752/5 measuring 1.46 acres for a sum of Rs.1500/-to the third defendant under the mortgage deed dated 09.06.1961. In order to discharge the mortgage over the entire properties, the suit property was sold to the third defendant by Chinamarakkal and her daughter, the first defendant herein under the registered sale deed dated 25.07.1966. The third defendant has been cultivating the lands raising crops therein. Infact the plaintiff himself purchased from his mother Chinamarakkal, the other field which was the subject of mortgage by virtue of the sale deed dated 16.07.1981. The sale deed dated 25.07.1966 is a genuine and valid document. The said sale deed is also binding on the vendor as well as the plaintiff. The plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within twelve years of the sale deed if he wants to declare it as void. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by limitation. With the aforesaid contention, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

.5. Later on, the first defendant filed a separate written statement wherein she has alleged that the written statement originally prepared in the office of the counsel engaged by the third defendant was not read over to her. Alleging that many contradictory averments and allegations have been made in the written statement filed by the third defendant, she would contend in the separate written statement filed by her that she is entitled to one-third share in the suit property.

6. The trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record returned a finding that Ex.B7 sale deed dated 09.06.1961 was true and valid. As a result of which, the suit prop