IMPORTANT POINT
A sale deed executed by a junior member of a joint family does not confer absolute title over ancestral property without the consent of co-parcenors.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 40 of 2008, dated 4.11.2008, on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 326 of 2005, dated 22.4.2008, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 40 of 2008, dated 4.11.2008, on the file of Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Tenkasi confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 326 of 2005, dated 22.04.2008, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The findings of the trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the sole appellant is before this Court. Pending the Second Appeal, the sole appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. It is also seen that the first respondent died pending the Second Appeal and respondents 2 to 5 were already brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent.

3. According to the appellant/Plaintiff, he purchased the suit property from the father of the defendants namely, Arunachala Thevar, Son of Samiya Thevar under registered sale deed, dated 30.01.1980. It was further stated in the plaint that in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff survey number of the subject-matter of the sale, was wrongly mentioned as S. No. 104/2004 instead of S. No. 109/16. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that from the date of purchase, he was in possession of the properties with four boundaries and hence, perfected title over the suit property. It was further averred that taking advantage of wrong survey number mentioned in the title deed, the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession and hence, the plaintiff

4. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the averments in the plaint as if the plaintiff purchased the property in S. No. 109/16 and has been enjoying the same with four specific boundaries. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was denied as a fraudulent document. It was further claimed by the defendants that the suit property originally belonged to Ananchiapandia Thevar, the grand father of Arunachala Thevar and hence, the averments found in the plaint, as if the suit property absolutely belong to Arunachala Thevar was not correct. It was also averred in the written statement that Arunachala Thevar pre-deceased his father Samiya Thevar who died on 01.08.1983 and Samiya Thevar died on 15.11.1985. The defendants raised a specific plea that Arunachala Thevar had no right to convey the entire suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It was also claimed by the defendants that after the death of Arunachala Thevar, they were brought up by paternal grand-father Samiya Thevar and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The continuous possession of the suit property from the date of sale as claimed by him was specifically denied.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that Ex.A1 sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff was a valid document, however, there was no evidence available on record to suggest that the plaintiff purchased the property in suit Survey Number 109/16 and hence, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 40 of 2008. The First Appellate Court, on reappreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that Arunachala Thevar executed a sale deed conveying the suit property in his favour. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings that the plaintiff failed to