The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for timely legal action to set aside voidable agreements and the limitation period for challenging ancestral property alienation.

1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2002 and made in A.S.No.15 of 2001, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam, modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 17.10.2001 and made in O.S.No.232 of 2000, on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.

2. The facts, which giving rise to the memorandum of second appeal are detailed as under:

The plaintiff and the defendants are the sons and daughters of one Govindasamy Pillai. The suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff, first defendant and their father Govindasamy Pillai. The said Govindasamy Pillai had died in the year 1988 and his wife Kunjammal had pre-deceased him. Hence, the plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Govindasamy Pillai.

3. The plaintiff and the first defendant are in the management of the suit properties. The plaintiff and the first defendant are, by their birth right and under a Will dated 15.02.1954, entitled to 1/3 share each over the suit properties. Besides this, the plaintiff and the defendants are each entitled to 1/5 share in their father's 1/3rd share. Thus, the plaintiff and the first defendant are each entitled to 6/15 share and the defendants 2 to 4 are each entitled to 1/15 share. Since the defendants were evading partition, the plaintiff had filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of his 6/15th share over the suit properties.

4. The first defendant had contended that a rice mill and its site had not been included in the suit as the same are belonged to joint family. Taking undue advantage of the poor vision of their father, the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained a document from him to make it appear as if he had purchased the said mill and its site from their father. After coming to know about this fact their father had sent a petition to the District Supply Officer, Thanjavur on 24.07.1986, requesting not to effect name transfer in respect of this Will in the name of plaintiff. Govindasamy Pillai had no right to execute any sale in respect of the mill and its site, which is also a part of the ancestral coparcenary property and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim any independent right over the said property.

5. In the Panchayath held on 11.07.1998, the properties were finally partitioned between the parties and accordingly a partition chit was written and signed by the plaintiff and the first defendant. As noted in the chit, A-Schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff and the B-Schedule property was allotted to the first defendant. Similarly, certain properties were also allotted to the defendants 2 to 4. Hence, the suit for fresh partition is not sustainable. The mill building and the land comprised in R.S.Nos.291/2 and 291/3 of Azhinjamangalam Village shall have to be included in the partition.

6. The defendants 2 to 4 have agreed with the claim of the plaintiff and they have also claimed each 1/15 share over the suit properties. They have also paid necessary Court fee ie.Rs.100/- for their respective shares.

7. Based on the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the trial Court had formulated as nearly as the following four issues for the better adjudication of the suit:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 6/15th share over the suit properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to further mesne profits as prayed for?

3. Whether the defendants 2 to 4 are entitled to share over the suit properties?

4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

8. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 and during the course of his examination Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the other hand, the first defendant had examined himself as DW1 and during the course of his examination Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidences were adduced on behalf of the other defendants.

9. On appreciation of evidences and other materials available on record, the trial Court h