The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a sale deed executed by the family manager, the entitlement of daughters to ancestral property under the Amended Hindu Succession Act, and the powers of alienation of joint family property by the father.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.08.2008 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Virdhachalam, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.102 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 27.08.2008 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Virdhachalam, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.102 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

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

3. The third defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.

4. Suit for partition.

5. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the first defendant and the plaintiffs are the daughters of the defendants 1 & 2. The third defendant’s husband, the deceased Vaithilingam is the son of the defendants 1 & 2 and the plaintiffs are each entitled to 1/4 share in the suit properties. As regards the first item of the suit properties, the plaintiffs’ parents obtained the signature of the plaintiffs on the pretext that they intend to mortgage the first item of the suit properties and without reading the contents of the deed and the contents of the deed also not having been disclosed to the plaintiffs, their signatures had been obtained in the deed and the plaintiffs came to understand that by way of the deed, the first item of the suit properties had been alienated in favour of the deceased Vaithilingan and his wife viz., the third defendant and the said deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs and till date, the suit properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant as the family manager and therefore, the plaintiffs are deemed to be in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and after the demise of Vaithilingam, the defendants 2 & 3 are entitled to succeed to his share in the suit properties and the deceased Vaithilingam during his life time had also relinquished his share in the suit properties by way of the deed dated 28.09.2000 and therefore, the third defendant is not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties and despite several requests, the plaintiffs had not been allotted their due shares in the suit properties and at the instance of the third defendant, the third item of the suit properties had also been included and hence, according to the plaintiffs, the suit has been laid by them for obtaining their shares in the suit properties.6. The defendants 1 & 2 resisted the plaintiffs’ suit contending that it is true that in respect of the first item of the suit properties, the sale deed had been executed in favour of the deceased Vaithilingam and his wife viz., the third defendant, however, no consideration was paid for the same both by the deceased Vaithilingam and his wife, the third defendant and the third defendant’s family members did not allow the deceased Vaithilingam and the third defendant to live together and been insisting that the properties should be sold to the deceased Vaithilingam and the third defendant and left with no other alternative, the sale deed had come to be effected qua the first item of the suit properties in favour of the deceased Vaithilingam and the third defendant. However, pursuant to the abovesaid sale deed, neither the deceased Vaithilingam nor the third defendant had enjoyed the first item of the suit properties and further, the deceased Vaithilingam during his life time had executed a Will dated 28.09.2000 bequeathing his share in the suit properties and in such view of the matter, the third defendant is not entitled to claim any share or right in the suit properties and the plaintiffs are not aware of the contents of the sale deed executed