JUDGMENT :

PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, passed in O.S.No.37 of 2009, on the file of II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi, dated 28.02.2014.

The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 2009, dated 28.02.2014, on the file of II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi.

2. The gist of the plaint is as follows:

(a) One Periya Yeman Kudumban purchased the suit properties vide two sale deeds dated 15.02.1900 and 06.01.1910 and since then he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He died intestate leaving behind his two sons viz., Periya Sudalaimadan and Perumal and both of them inherited all the properties. Periya Sudalaimadan died leaving behind his only son Santhana Kudumban and whereas his brother Perumal died leaving behind his only son Andi and both of them have become the owners of the suit properties. Santha Kudumban died leaving behind his only son Arunachalam, whereas Andi had died in or about 1954 leaving behind his three sons viz., Pandaram, Arumugam and Puthiyavan as his legal heirs. All the three sons of Andi remained in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with the successors of Periya Sudalaimadan without any partition or division having 1/6th share therein.

(b) The first plaintiff is the only daughter of Pandaram and the second plaintiff is the only son of Arumugam. Pandaram died in 1969 leaving behind his wife Puthiyaval and daughter Vadivammal and subsequently, Arumugam had also died intestate on 24.02.2006 leaving behind the second plaintiff as his sole heir. Hence both the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/6th shares in the suit properties.

(c) While so, the first defendant has purchased the suit property from one R.Vijayakumar and A.Suresh, vide sale deed dated 14.10.2008, who in turn purchased the same from Easwaran, vide sale deed dated 19.11.2007. Since the plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit properties, the alleged sale deeds dated 19.11.2007 and 14.10.2008 executed with respect to the suit properties do not and cannot affect the plaintiff's undivided interest in the suit properties.

(d) Since the first defendant has been taking expeditious steps to dispose of the plots, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 31.05.2009, calling upon the first defendant to partition the suit properties and allot their 2/6 share therein. The first defendant having received the said notice on 05.06.2009, has neither chosen to send any reply nor complied with the notice demand. Hence, the suit.

(e) Pending suit, since the first defendant, after the purchase of the suit properties, converted the same into house plots and alienated the same to the defendants 2 to 11, they were also impleaded as additional defendants. The twelfth defendant is the mother of the plaintiffs. Even though, she is entitled to get share in the suit properties, she is not claiming any share/right in the suit properties. Since the defendants 13 to 18 are also claiming shares and right in the suit properties, they have been impleaded as parties to the suit.

3. The defence of the first defendant is as follows:

(a) One Nallamadan had four sons viz., Periya Yeman, Chinna Yeman, Maadan and Subban. Periya Yeman purchased a part of the suit properties vide sale deed dated 15.02.1900 and another portion of the suit properties on 06.01.1910. Periya Yeman died leaving behind his two sons viz., Sudalaimadan and Perumal. Sudalaimadan died leaving behind his only son Santhanam, whereas Perumal died leaving behind his only son Andi. The above said Santhanam had died leaving behind his son Arunachalam, whereas Andi died leaving his three sons viz., Pandaram, Armugam and Puthiyavan. After the death of Pandaram, his wife Puthiyaval had married her husband's brother Arumugam.

(b) During the life time of Arunachalam, he executed a gift deed, dated 20.08.1986 in favour of his son Eswaran, giving his share in the suit properties. The said Eswa