The requirement for a suit for general partition when challenging an alienation of joint family property, as established in Indian Law Reports 1926 Madras Vol.I - Kandasamy Udayan V. Velayutha Udayan and 2009 (7) SCC 444 - Ramdas V. Sitabai.

1. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.203 made in A.S.No.6 of 2003 on the file of Additional District-cum-Fast Track Court, Tindivanam reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2001 made in O.S.No.429 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur.

2. For the sake of convenience the plaintiffs in the suit are referred as appellants and the defendants in the suit are referred as respondents hereafter.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and there is no representation on the side of both the respondents.

4. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of preliminary decree for partition of 6/7 share in the suit property and for mesne profits from the first respondent. Briefly, the case of the appellants is that the suit property was originally belonged to Ramabathrachariar, now he is no more. One Lakshmiammal is his first wife and the second respondent viz., Sarojammal is his second wife. The appellants are daughters of Ramabathrachariar through his second wife. The first wife (i.e,) Lakshmiammal already filed a suit in OS.No.452 of 1973 before the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam for partition in respect of her share in the properties of her husband. In the above said suit a compromise decree was passed on 25.09.1985 and in the said compromise decree except three items, all the other properties including suit property were allotted to appellants and second respondent herein. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to 1/7 share each, totally 6/7 shares in the suit property. It is further case of the appellants is that the first respondent entered into an agreement with the second respondent in respect of 1/7share of 2nd respondent and received advance of Rs.25,000/- and executed a sale deed on 14.05.1992. But the first respondent made false averments as if the sale consideration of Rs.87,000/- has been already paid and the entire suit property was sold. The first respondent without explaining the contents of the sale deed to the appellants and second respondent obtained the appellants signatures as witnesses in the sale deed. On 26.06.1994 the appellants 2 to 6 issued legal notice to the first respondent and seeks partition. In the reply notice dated 10.08.1994, the first respondent had falsely stated as if on 17.06.1988 the appellants also executed an agreement of sale for a sale consideration of Rs.61,500/- and received advance of Rs.43,000/- and later, received Rs.10,000/- as advance on 01.04.1990. The alleged sale deed executed by the second respondent on 14.05.1992 in favour of the first respondent is fraudulent document, therefore this suit has been filed by appellants for their share in the suit property.

5. Before the trial Court the second respondent remained exparte and the first respondent alone filed written statement. In the said written statement, it is admitted that the suit property was originally belonged to one Ramabathrachariar and also admitted that the appellants and the second respondent are legal heirs of the Ramabathrachariar. It is also admitted that the previous suit filed by the first wife ended in to a compromise and allotted the properties as stated in the plaint. According to the first respondent, the appellants and second respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the first appellant on 17.06.1988 and agreed to sell the suit property for sum of Rs.61,500/- and executed a sale agreement and received sum of Rs.43,000/- as advance, by 3rd & 5th appellants. Further the appellants had given consent that the 2nd respondent alone executed a sale deed and the appellants have not objected the sale. On 01.04.1990, the first respondent paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the second respondent had acknowledged in the agreement itself in the presence of appellants 2 and 3. In the above said agreement of sale appellants 3 and 5 affixed their signatures as witnesses for receipt of the said amount. The