1. First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, made in O.S.No.5 of 2007 dated 07.06.2010.

The above first appeal arises against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants, the respondents 1 to 8 were the defendants and the ninth respondent, who is the purchaser of the suit schedule properties, was impleaded in the above appeal.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2007 for partition, separate possession, to declare the documents created by the defendants viz., Partition Deed dated 24.07.2006 and the Sale Deeds created by the defendants 1 to 4 in pursuance of the said Partition Deed in favour of third parties are void ab initio and for permanent injunction.

4. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:

(i) According to the plaintiffs, one Govindasamy Kounder had one daughter and one son viz., the second plaintiff and Ramachandra Kounder respectively. The said Govindasamy Kounder died intestate in the year 1975. The first defendant is the mother of the first plaintiff, who is the wife of the said Ramachandra Kounder and defendants 2 to 4 are the daughters of the first defendant and Ramachandra Kounder. The second plaintiff is the aunt of the first plaintiff. The said Ramachandra Kounder also died on 24.05.1982, leaving behind the first plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs.

(ii) According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties and other properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. The properties were in possession and enjoyment of the second plaintiff's father till he was alive and after his death, the second plaintiff and his brother were in enjoyment of the same. The first plaintiff's father Ramachandra Kounder was also dealing with the properties and the second plaintiff was also taken care of by her brother. The defendants 1 to 4 had adopted hostile attitude against the plaintiffs recently and without reference to them, they on their own had created a Partition Deed dated 24.07.2006 as if all the suit properties should be appropriated by them and without the knowledge and consent of the first plaintiff, they had also illegally and unauthorisedly included his name in that Partition Deed. The Partition Deed dated 24.07.2006 created by the defendants 1 to 4 is not valid in the eye of law and the properties were not even divided as per law for which the first plaintiff was not a consenting party and signatory and it was created at his back. The said document is not binding on the first plaintiff. So far as the second plaintiff is concerned, no one can deal with her share and none has got a right to deny her share also. The alleged Partition Deed is void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs and is non-est in the eye of law.

(iii) The first defendant cannot become the family manager and the plaintiffs never authorised her to divide the properties. The properties were always in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, especially the first plaintiff being the sole male member of the family. The defendants 1 to 4 had also created Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants 5 to 8 on the strength of the Partition Deed. The sixth defendant had also created simple mortgage in favour of one Gnanavel, which is void and the same is ignored.

(iv) The second plaintiff being the daughter of Govindasamy Kounder, who died intestate in 1975, is entitled to 1/4th share in the joint family properties and Ramachandra Kounder is entitled to the remaining 3/4th share. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 together are entitled to 3/4th share. The first plaintiff is entitled to 9/20th share and the defendants 1 to 4 each are entitled to 3/40th share (i.e.) 12/40 or 3/10th share. Therefore, the first plaintiff is entitled to 9/20th share, the se