M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in OS.No.47/2012 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam, is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit praying for the relief of partition of the suit property along with the land and superstructure bearing new Door No.343, Kotuveerampalayam Village, Sathyamangalam Bazaar, Sathyamangalam, into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff, declaring the alleged forged document of a Sale Deed bearing Document No.982/1973 dated 18.05.1973 as null and void and also to award cost.

3. The 3rd defendant has filed the written statement refuting the allegations and she also filed IA.No.342 of 2012 under Order 7, Rule 11(a)(b) and under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint and the said application, after contest, came to be ordered vide judgment and decree 31.08.2015. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree, rejecting the plaint, filed an appeal in AS.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopichettipalayam, and the Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017, has dismissed the said appeal and challenging the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, the plaintiff is before this Court by filing this Second Appeal.

4. The appellant/plaintiff in the plaint would further aver among other things, that the suit property more fully described, originally belonged to her father and the defendants 1 and 2, by virtue of a registered Partition Deed dated 22.05.1962. The father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as well as their mother, died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 as their legal heirs and their father, during his life time, had created a usufructuary mortgage on 01.02.1967 in favour of Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib and Mohamed Abdul Khader Sahib. The plaintiff would further aver that her father used to be away from the native to eke out his livelihood and she was looked after by her father's brother, viz., Basheer Ahmed Khan Sahib, as caretaker and the 3rd defendant is his wife. It is further stated by the plaintiff that during the life time of her father, he also verified before the Sub Registrar office and found that a forged document was created and registered in the name of the 3rd defendant in respect of the suit property and it is a forged one and not all signed and executed by her father and as such, it will not bind the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, being the right over the property. The plaintiff, on coming to know of the same, has sent a legal notice dated 08.11.2010 to the 3rd defendant and her father, on becoming aware of the said fraud, also lodged a police complaint and the investigation is still pending. In sum and substance, it is the case of the plaintiff that since the document created in favour of the 3rd defendant is wrong and forged and not at all executed by her father and her father died intestate, she along with the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 3rd share in the suit property and therefore, came forward to file the present suit for partition.

5. The 3rd defendant filed the written statement refuting the allegations and would contend that the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 had executed a registered Sale Deed dated 18.05.1973 in her favour and till the issuance of pre-suit notice on 08.11.2010, no steps have been taken to challenge the legality of the said Sale Deed. It is further contended by the 3rd defendant that a perusal of the Sale Deed dated 18.05.1973 executed in her favour would also disclose that the encumbrance in the form of mortgage has been cleared by her and she also filed a suit for recovery of possession also. The 3rd defendant would also contend that the suit has also not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and in any event, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and prays for dismissal of the su