JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.36 of 2016 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Dharapuram, Thiruppur District, dated 24.04.2017, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.106 of 2014 on the file of Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, dated 28.04.2016.)

1. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.106 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.

2. The appellants filed the suit in O.S.No.106 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, for partition of 2/6 share in suit ASchedule and 8/27 share in the suit B-Schedule and for consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants in the plaint is as follows :

3.1.The suit properties originally belonged to one Ayyappa Naicker who was holding the same as ancestral. Ayyappa Naicker and his only son by name Duraisamy Naidu divided the suit properties among the family members who are coparceners by virtue of a partition deed, dated 11.05.1967, which is registered as Doc.No.2345/1967 on the file of Sub- Registrar's Office, Udumalpet. As per the said partition deed, A-Schedule to the deed was alloted to the share of Ayyappa Naicker for life and defendants 1 and 2, who are the sons of Duraisamy Naidu, were given vested interest. The properties given to Ayyappa Naicker and defendants 1 and 2 are the suit A-Schedule properties. The properties which are described as B-Schedule in the partition deed were allotted to the share of Duraisamy Naidu. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons and daughter of Duraisamy Naidu. Plaintiffs are the daughter and son of 1st defendant.

3.2. After the demise of Ayyappa Naicker, defendants 1 and 2 derived absolute right over the suit A-Schedule properties as per the partition deed. The property that was allotted to Duraisamy Naidu is the ancestral property of defendants 1 and 2 who are entitled to equal right along with Duraisamy Naidu. In the suit B-Schedule property, defendants 1 and 2 have equal right along with Duraisamy Naidu. Since Duraisamy Naidu died intestate on 10.06.1993 leaving behind his wife namely Rukmani, who also died on 28.11.2005 leaving behind defendants 1 to 3 as her legal heirs, defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 4/9 share in the suit property each and 3rd defendant is entitled to 1/9 share.

3.3. The plaintiffs became major in the year 2010 and 2012 respectively and they are struggling for their livelihood, as the 1st defendant is not taking care of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached the defendants 1 and 2 who informed them that the properties had already been sold. It was only later, plaintiff came to know that an extent of 6.09 Acres of land have been transferred in favour of 4th defendant by defendants 1 to 3 under a document of sale dated 02.02.2006 for a price of Rs.3,24,000/-. Defendants 1 to 3 have not even disclosed the right of plaintiffs as coparceners. The sale is neither for the benefit of plaintiffs nor for the benefit of family. The plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed and therefore, the sale deed in favour of 4th defendant is void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are ignoring the sale deed.

3.4. Remaining part of the suit properties were settled in favour of 3rd defendant by virtue of settlement deed dated 14.02.2011 registered as Doc.No.1430 of 2011 before the Sub-Registrar's Office, Udumalpet, which is nothing but sham and nominal document.

3.5. The sale deed as well as the settlement deeds are created for the purpose of defeating the rights of plaintiffs who were minors then. The 4th defendant constructed a building in the suit property and has also created a mortgage. Neither the mortgage nor the sale can deprive the share of plaintiff in the suit property.

3.6. The plaintiffs got equal share in the share of 1st defendant and the plaintiffs are in constructive possession of the suit properti