The suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiffs failed to challenge the alienations within three years from their alleged date of discovering the Will in 1997.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Or XLI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.2) at Cuddalore, dated 23.03.2011 and to decree the suit as prayed for.

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 23.03.2011 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore in O.S.No.141 of 2008, in and by which, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit ‘B’ schedule properties and for consequential reliefs, was dismissed by the Trial Court.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties belong to one Adimoolam. Ellammal was the wife of Adimoolam and the couple had three sons by name Jayaraman, Krishnasami and Rajaraman. As on the date of filing of the suit, the aforesaid Adimoolam, Ellammal and Jayaraman had died. The sons of Jayaraman namely, Thiruvengadam, Venkatesan and Gnanavel are the plaintiffs. The said Krishnasami and Rajaraman are arrayed as the defendants 10 and 11. The defendants 1 to 4 are the purchasers of some of the items of the schedule properties. The suit properties are the separate properties of Adimoolam. He executed a Will, dated 27.01.1969 in respect of his properties. The Will covers the properties both in Puducherry and also in Tamil Nadu. This suit is filed in respect of the properties which are described in schedule-B of the suit which are in Tamil Nadu state. As per the Will, the said Adimoolam had bequeathed the properties conferring only the life estate to all of his three sons namely, Jayaraman, Krishnasami and Rajaraman and vested the properties in the children of the said three sons. Therefore, it is only the plaintiffs, defendants 5 to 9 are the owners of the property, once the Will came into force. However, without any right whatsoever, the said brothers, who had only life estate, had sold the suit items to different persons by three registered sale deeds, of which, two are dated 06.06.1984 and the other is dated 03.07.1985. The said purchasers are arrayed as the defendants 1 to 4. Even though the defendants 10 and 11 have life estate, considering their attitude, the suit is filed for partition and separate possession.

C. The Written Statement :

3. The other co-sharers namely, the defendants 5 to 9 had filed a written statement, supporting the case of the plaintiffs and that they also sought for partition and they paid Court fees in respect of their shares.

3.1. The suit was resisted by the third defendant by filing a written statement. According to the same, the first defendant, Kalaimagal Sabha, is the society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and it has validly purchased the suit properties. The suit properties were the separate properties of Jayaraman, Krishnasami and Rajaraman and they have rightly sold the same. The alleged Will is denied. The patta of the property and the other records stood in the name of Jayaraman and two others and after perusing the same, the third defendant purchased the property. The suit is filed with an ulterior motive at a belated stage and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

3.2. The fourth defendant in the suit also contested the suit by filing a written statement. As per the same, even if the alleged Will dated 27.01.1969 is true, still Adimoolam had no right to execute any Will in respect of the joint family properties. After the death of Adimoolam, his sons have dealt with the properties by the three sale deeds, two dated 06.06.1984 and one dated 03.07.1985. The said Jayaraman, the father of the plaintiffs died decades ago and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The fourth defendant is concerned only with Ac.1.13 cents of the fifth item of the suit property.

3.3. An additional written statement was also filed by the fourth defendant, whereund