This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.12.2000 passed in A.S.No.96 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2000 passed in O.S.No.928 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for partition.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property originally belonged to Rethina Padayachi and the same is the ancestral and joint family property of Rethina Padayachi and after his death, his son Muthukumarasamy and his grandson Kannan succeeded to the same as Members of the Hindu undivided family and the son Muthukumarasamy was not sound in mind and affected by isnomnia and leprosy and on 06.03.1982, the plaintiff purchased the suit property represented by his curator and wife Saroja and also from his son Kannan and after the purchase, it is only the plaintiff, who has been enjoying the suit property by putting up brick built thatched building, etc., and while so, the defendant claims to have purchased the suit property from Muthukumarasamy by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.03.1982 and on that basis, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment and the same resulted in the laying of the suit by the plaintiff against the defendant in O.S.No.136 of 1982 for permanent injunction and pending the above suit, the defendant illegally encroached into the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff amended the relief for recovery of possession in the said suit and as the plaintiff was advised to amend the plaint further for including the relief of partition as the defendant had also claimed to have purchased the suit property from Muthukumarasamy and as the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Kannan, S/o. Muthukumarasamy each deriving half share in the suit property, accordingly, the plaintiff sought for the amendment of the plaint for partition and the same was entertained by the trial court and impugning the same, the defendant preferred a petition in CRP.No.585/1994 and the High Court was pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition and thereby, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff for partition was negatived. However, the High Court had observed that the plaintiff is at liberty to work out his remedy in appropriate forum and accordingly, the plaintiff has laid the present suit for partition of his half share in the suit property.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on fact. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit property is the joint family property of Muthukumarasamy and his son is incorrect. The suit property is the absolute property of Muthukumarasamy, on the demise of his father Rethina Padayachi, as the same was purchased by Rethina Padayachi and his absolute property. Muthukumarasamy was mentally sound, but he was suffering from Leprosy and accordingly, his wife and son did not provide for his maintenance and treatment and neglected him and the defendant and Muthukumarasamy entered into an agreement of sale on 20.03.1980 in respect of the suit property and pursuant to the same, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant by Muthukumarasamy and on 10.03.1982, the defendant purchased the suit property from Muthukumarasamy and thus, it is only the defendant, who is entitled to the suit property and as the request of Muthukumarasamy s wife and son for paying a portion of the consideration to them was refused by the defendant, they had created a sale deed on 06.03.1982 in the name of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff has come forward with the false suit and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not true and valid. The sale deed obtained by the plaintiff from Muthukumarasamy's wife and son will not confer any title on him to claim partition. The pla