ORDER :

[Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to allow the above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2009 made in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Pudhucherry.

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to allow the above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2009 made in I.A.No.19 of 2006 in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Pudhucherry.]

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed as against fair and decreetal orders dated 24.07.2009, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pudhucherry in O.S.No.26 of 2006 and I.A.No.19 of 2006 in O.S.No.26 of 2006, thereby dismissing the suit by allowing the petition filed under Order 14 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., praying that the issue of valuation of suit and payment of Court fees thereupon may be taken as preliminary issue before deciding the other issues.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.26 of 2006 for partition as against the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property originally belonged to one Appavu Gramani and by the Donation cum partition deed dated 29.08.1930 his four sons viz., Natesa Gramani, Rangasamy @ Govindasamy Gramani, Rathinavelu Gramani and Ramachandran Gramani donated their respective shares except the suit properties and some of the properties. Therefore, the suit properties are not covered in the said Donation cum partition deed. Though the fifth item of the suit property is covered under the said Donation cum partition deed, it was not acted upon.

4. After demise of the said Appavu Gramani, his four sons enjoyed his properties jointly in co-ownership and each having 1/4th of undivided title, right and interest therein. While being so, the first son viz., Natesa Gramani died on 13.04.1965 leaving behind his two sons viz., the defendants 1 & 2 in the suit. The second son viz., Rangasamy @ Govindasamy Gramani died on 10.03.1977, leaving behind his wife and children viz., the defendants 3 to 6. The defendants 7 to 9 are the sons of the fifth defendant. The third son of the said Appavu Gramani viz., Rathinavelu Gramani died on 07.05.1969, leaving behind his wife and children viz., the plaintiffs. The last son viz., Ramachandran Gramani died on 27.08.1966 leaving behind his only daughter viz., tenth defendant herein. Therefore, there are four branches of claimants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties jointly in respect of their 1/4 share due to them.

5. While being so, the defendants 5 to 9 colluded with defendants 11 to 13 and fabricated document in favour of the defendants 11 to 13, in respect of some of the suit properties, intending to defeat right of other co-sharers. In turn, the defendants 11 to 13 fabricated document in favour of the defendants 14 to 21 in respect of some suit properties. The purported transactions effected in favour of the defendants 14 to 21 are null and void in respect of 1/4 share of the plaintiffs. Despite repeated demands, the defendants 3 to 6 did not come forwards for an amicable partition. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming that they are in joint possession of the suit property along with the defendants 1 to 6 and 10.

6. Resisting the same, the defendants filed written statement and stated that the suit properties are not joint family property belonged to one Appavu Gramani. All the properties are self acquired properties of the Rangasamy @ Govindasamy Gramani, as such the legal heirs of the said Govindasamy Gramani rightly sold some of the properties in favour of the defendants 11 to 13 for the valid sale consideration by the registered sale deeds. In