IMPORTANT POINT
The legal principle established is that in cases involving the sale of joint family property, the burden of proving legal necessity lies with the purchaser only if the plaintiffs have properly pleaded the absence of such necessity. Additionally, a suit for partition must encompass all properties unless legally justified otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

(S. Srimathy, J.)

(Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgement and Decree dated 25.04.2022 in A.S.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.49 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Sub Court, Manamadurai.)

The plaintiffs are the appellants herein and the defendants are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs namely S.Ashok and S.Raja had filed the suit for partition claiming 1/5th share each and to declare the alleged sale deed dated 14.12.2011, in Document Registration No.5875/2011 and 5876/2011 as void and permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence and the deposition of the parties had allowed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the 1st defendant had preferred first appeal and the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence and the deposition had allowed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs had preferred the present second appeal raising various substantial questions of law.

3. The brief facts are that the 2nd defendant is the father of two plaintiffs and 3rd and 4th defendants. The 1st defendant is the purchaser of the property. Originally the schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs' grandfather namely to Duraiswami Chettiar. On 22.02.1964, the said Duraiswami Chettiar and his three sons namely Shanmugam Chettiar, Thaandavam Chettiar and Srinivasan Chettiar (2nd defendant) had executed registered partition deed in Document No.220/1964 in Sub-Registrar Office, Manamadurai. In the said partition, the 2nd defendant was allotted with the suit mentioned properties along with some five other properties. In short, the second defendant was allotted six properties in the said partition deed. Ever since from the date of partition, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with the defendants 2 to 4. Since the suit properties are ancestral property, the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 have 1/5th share each in the suit property. Due to family circumstances, the plaintiffs and 3rd and 4th defendants left their native place. However, the suit properties are under the joint possession and each plaintiffs have 1/5th share in the suit property. Since the 2nd defendant is residing adjacent to the suit property, the plaintiffs were under the bona fide impression that the 2nd defendant would look after the suit property. While that being so, the 1st defendant made the 2nd defendant to execute registered sale deeds in Document Nos.5875/2011, 5876/2011 in Sub-Registrar Office, Madurai dated 14.12.2011 and sold the suit property to the 1st defendant including the plaintiffs’ share. The 2nd defendant was never ever authorised to execute the sale deed. Hence, on 09.07.2013 the 2nd plaintiff issued a legal notice to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant had replied on 29.07.2013 with the false and baseless allegations. But the 2nd defendant did not reply to the said notice. On 01.08.2013 the plaintiffs had applied for true copy of the registered sale, which reveals that the 1st defendant had purchased the suit property, including the shares of the plaintiffs without the consent or signature of the plaintiffs and the 3rd and 4th defendants. The 2nd defendant alone executed the two sale deeds, which are illegal. Hence the said sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. On 19.08.2013, the 1st defendant came and tried to take illegal possession of the suit property but the same was intervened by the neighbours. Hence, the plaintiffs preferred police complaint, but the police refused to t