Legal necessity must be proven to invalidate a sale deed executed for minors' benefit, with the burden of proof on defendants to contest authenticity.

JUDGMENT :

(R.N. MANJULA, J.)

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2010 made in A.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Krishnagiri reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008 made in O.S.No.133 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Krishnagiri.

2. The appellants are the defendants. The deceased first plaintiff by name Varadappan has filed a suit against the defendants for seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit and the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs 2 to 8 was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have filed this Second Appeal.

3. Heard Mr.K.Venkatasubban, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The suit property was purchased by the deceased Varadappan who was the first plaintiff in the suit, through a sale deed dated 12.06.1989 executed by Thimmappa, husband of the first defendant. The suit property was sold by the first defendant's husband for discharging the family debts and for maintaining his minor children. Immediately after the execution of the above sale deed, the plaintiffs had taken possession of the suit property and were in enjoyment of the same. On 14.04.1996, the first defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property and the deceased first plaintiff prevented the same. The first defendant denied the title of the deceased first plaintiff to the suit property. Hence, she trespassed into the suit property and dispossessed the plaintiffs. The first defendant did not have any title or possession over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and his wife and children have been impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 8. The defendants 2 to 4 have been impleaded on their petition filed to implead them as parties to the suit.

5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:

The first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she has been cultivating in the said property. Chitta and adangal stand in the name of the first defendant's husband and patta also stands in his name. The first defendant's husband has not sold the suit property to the first plaintiff and the sale deed is a fraudulent one and it was not acted upon. The first defendant came to know about the existence of the sale deed just recently and that will not bind the interest of the defendants. Hence, the suit should be dismissed.

6. The averments made in the Written Statement filed by the defendants 2 to 4 are as follows:

The suit property was in possession and enjoyment of Thimmappa who is the husband of the first defendant. The plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the suit property in pursuant to the sale deed dated 12.06.1989. It is false to state that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The necessary parties are not impleaded and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the