T. Ravindran, J.

Challenge in this second appeal is made by the second defendant against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2010 made in A.S. No. 78 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Erode, Confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2007 made in O.S. No. 205 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode in so far as it went against him.

2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs claiming partition of 2/3 shares of the plaintiffs 2 & 3 in the suit properties and also claiming maintenance for the first plaintiff from the first defendant and also, claiming the relief of charge over the share of the first defendant's properties for regular payment of the maintenance to the first plaintiff and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties, till the passing of the final decree.

3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal.

(a) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the Sale Deed dated 04.03.1998 executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant is not binding on the second plaintiff in respect of 1/2 share ignoring the fact that the sale was made by the father, the Kartha of joint family for the welfare of the family and for discharging the loan borrowed for the expenses of joint family.

(b) Are the Courts below committed error in not taking into account of the fact that after the sale by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 04.03.1988, the plaintiffs and the first defendant were living together till 2004 and the first defendant taking care of his children as per documents Ex.X1 & X3 and the evidence of PW1 and therefore the suit is collusive and not maintainable.

(c) Whether the Courts below are correct in allowing the suit partly and holding that the Sale Deed dated 04.03.1998 is not binding on the second plaintiff as far as his 1/2 share is concerned, in the absence of any document or proof that the first defendant acted against the interest of family and children and used the sale proceeds for illegal purpose.

4. The first plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the children of the first defendant. The second defendant is the paternal uncle of the first defendant and according to the plaintiffs and also the case of the defendants, the second defendant had purchased the suit properties from the first defendant under the sale deed dated 04.03.1998.

5. It is admitted that the first plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant and the plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the children of the first defendant and the first plaintiff. The marriage between the first plaintiff and the first defendant is a love marriage. For seeking maintenance from the first defendant, according to the plaintiffs, the first defendant fell into evil ways, like consuming liquor, gambling etc., from 1996 onwards and also, started ill treating the first plaintiff both mentally and physically and though the first plaintiff tolerated all the atrocities committed by the first defendant, according to the plaintiffs, the first defendant had driven out the plaintiffs from his residence and in the above circumstances, according to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is duty-bound to provide maintenance to the first plaintiff and the first plaintiff has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the first defendant and also prayed charge over in respect of the shares of the first defendant in the suit properties for regular payment of the maintenance.

6. As regards the case of the plaintiffs for claiming 2/3 share in the suit properties to the plaintiffs 2 & 3, it is stated that the suit properties and other properties are the ancestral properties of the first defendant and the plaintiffs 2 & 3 and it is further stated that the first defendant and his father Muthusamy Gounder had partitioned their f