JUDGMENT :

A. The Appeal Suit :

If the properties belong to three siblings and one of them mortgages the entire property to the Bank, by producing a forged Legal Heirship Certificate, what is the remedy open to the other sisters is the question-which arises in this Appeal Suit.

2. This Appeal Suit is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2013, on the file of the VII- Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in and by which, the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the 4threspondent/Bank, from bringing the entire property to auction and for partition of the suit property and to allot 1/3rd share each in the suit property, was dismissed by the Trial Court.

B. Facts of the Case :

3. The facts of this case are not in controversy and by and large admitted by both sides. The suit property is a piece of plot measuring 1947 square feet in Old No.7 and New No.13, First Street, Plot No.24, Thiruppur Kumaran Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 15, comprised in T.S.No.22, Block No.3 of Mambalam Village, Chennai. The property was purchased by the plaintiffs' mother, namely, T.Roopavathi, by a registered sale deed dated 07.05.1987 registered as Document No.637 of 1987 with the Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar. She died on 13.07.1997, leaving behind her husband K.A.Annamalai, Porkodi, her daughter/first plaintiff, Manimegalai, her daugther/second plaintiff, and a son Tholkappiayan. The said Tholkappiayan died on 29.01.2006, leaving behind his wife, T.Leelavathi/the first defendant, his daughter Ponmozhi, the second defendant, and his son, T.Tamilmozhiyan/the third defendant. The plaintiffs' father K.A.Annamalai, died on 29.07.1998, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the said Tholkappiayan as his legal heir.

4. The plaintiffs' brother A.Tholkappiayan, was involved in a partnership business in the name and style M/s. Shabbika Garments with one Shabir Ahmed, who was sent to jail for serious economic offenses, etc. The said Tholkappiyan and the said Shabir Ahmed had obtained loans for their business with M/s.State Bank of India, Siruthozhil Branch, Chennai, which is the 4th defendant in the suit.

5. They availed a term loan of a sum of Rs.17.78 Lakhs as on 29.01.2006. As on February 2006, they have also availed the working capital limit of Rs.30 Lakhs. The said Tholkappiayan, the brother of the plaintiffs, is said to have executed a Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds by depositing the original title deeds of the suit property with the 4th respondent/Bank and created a mortgage in respect of the suit property.

6. Since there was default, the Bank had filed O.A.No.20 of 2009, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I (DRT), at Chennai, and the said original application was decreed and a Recovery Certificate was issued in D.R.C.No.117 of 2009. Thereafter, it seems that by further proceedings, the suit property was attached by an order dated 26.10.2010, and intimation with regard thereto was sought to be affixed in the suit property. Thereupon, the present suit was filed on 10.11.2010. After filing of the suit, the plaintiffs also filed Claim petitions Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 before the Recovery Officer, on 13.11.2010.

7. The defendants Nos.1 to 3 in this suit namely, the legal heirs of said Tholkappiayan, remained ex-parte in the suit. The 4th defendant/Bank alone contested the suit by filing a written statement. In the said written statement, in paragraph No.4, the allegations made in the plaint were denied. The case of the 4th defendant/Bank is stated in paragraphs Nos.5 and 6, and it is essential to reproduce the entire paragraphs 5 & 6, which reads as hereunder:-

“5. This defendant states that the plaintiffs have all along been in the knowledge of the financial transactions of Mr.A.Tholkappiyan with the Fourth Respondent herein and of the mortgage created by Mr.A.Tholkappiyan as the owner of the suit property. This defendant states that after death of Mrs.Roopavathy, who was the original owner of the