JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000, in A.S.No.38 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the decree and judgment dated 27.02.1998 in O.S.No.209 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000, in A.S.No.38 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the decree and judgment dated 27.02.1998 in O.S.No.209 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :-

3.1. The suit is filed for partition. The suit properties are the ancestral property of the first defendant. The first defendant was allotted the suit property through partition. The first defendant is also an illiterate and drunkard. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of the first defendant. The other three daughters of the first defendant were married long ago and are living separately. The first defendant is being an illiterate and addicted to liquor sold away his ancestral property for immoral purposes. The plaintiff and the second defendant are entitled to each 1/3 share in the ancestral property. The first defendant sold out the property admeasuring 2 acres out of 5.79 acres comprised in S.No.21/2. However, the fourth defendant taking advantage of the first defendant's position forged the extent of 3.24 acres in the sale deed dated 22.09.1971. But the fourth defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring only 2 acres. He also sold out a portion of the land to the fifth defendant and another portion to one, Muthu Gounder, the father of the defendants 6 to 8. The fifth defendant sold out the land purchased from the fourth defendant again to the said Muthu Gounder. The first defendant also permitted his brother, namely the third defendant to cultivate about 2.06 acres of land comprised in S.No.21/2. In fact, the third defendant has no title over the property. However, he also sold out the above said property in favour of Muthu Gounder. The defendants 6 to 8 have also trespassed into property comprised in S.No.21/2B to an extent of 2.50 acres.

3.2 Further, the first defendant had also mortgaged the suit item No.3 of the property to the ninth defendant for a sum of Rs.500/- under the registered mortgage deed dated 06.05.1972. Thereafter the ninth defendant sold out the same by putting the thumb impression of the first defendant to the tenth defendant. Item No.4 of the suit property looked after by the third defendant was also sold out in favour of the eleventh defendant, and in turn the eleventh defendant transferred the item No.4 of the suit schedule property in favour of his mother, namely the twelfth defendant. Thereafter, the twelfth defendant transferred the same to their sons, who are defendants 14 to 17. Therefore, the sale of the property to the fourth defendant on 22.09.1971 is not valid. The sale deeds by the first defendant and the subsequent sale deeds by the subsequent purchasers are not binding on the defendants. Further, submitted that the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deeds and he was a minor at the time of executing the sale deeds. After obtaining majority, now he filed the suit for partition claiming 1/3 share in the suit schedule property.

4. The second defendant filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff and claimed 1/3 share in the suit property.

4.1 Resisting the plaintiff's case, the defendants 6 and 7 filed written statement and stated that it is true that the suit properties described in the plaint schedule were ancestral property of the first defendant. The first defendant is leading a normal life and the plaintiff and the second defendant are living along with the first defenda