Sale deeds executed by life estate holders without alienation rights are invalid; due process requires opportunity to rebut additional evidence in appellate hearings.

JUDGMENT :

P.DHANABAL, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Decree and Judgment passed in n A.S.No.81 of 2020 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit and they filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction and the suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree of the trial court, the 1^st plaintiff has preferred the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.81 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants, as referred before the trial court.

4. The gist of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs are as follows:-

4.1. The suit properties were originally belonged to one Dasappa Chettiar and the said Dasappa Chettiar died intestate leaving behind his five sons and thereafter, the family properties were divided through the partition deed dated 01.07.1934 and through that partition, the properties were allotted to the sons of Dasappa Chettiar, namely, Ellappa Chettiar and Venkatappa Chettiar. The said Ellapa Chettiar and Venkatapa Chettiar had divided their properties through the partition deed dated 16.02.1944. The suit properties were allotted to Venkatapa Chettiar and he was in possession and enjoyment of the properties. During the life time of the said Venkatapa chettiar, he had executed a registered Will dated 15.11.1947 in favour of his wife Balammal and his two daughters, namely, Govindammal and Solaiammal, through the said Will, life interest was given to Balammal and after her life time, the properties were given to his two daughters, namely, Solaiammal and Govindammal.

4.2. The said Venkatapa Chettiar died on 04.12.1947 and after the demise of Venkatapa chettiar, the said Balammal was entitled to right of enjoyment without any right to alienate the properties. The daughters of Venkatapa chettiar, namely, Solaimmal and Govindammal predeceased their mother, Balammal. The said Solaimamal died on 10.01.1986 and the said Govindammal died on 21.03.1969 and the said Balammal died on 06.02.1989. The said Solaimmal died intestate leaving behind the son, Balaraman and daughter-in-law, who is wife of another son namely, Amirthalingam. The said Govindammal died intestate leaving behind her legal heirs, Dasappan and Ramanathan and daughter Suseela. The said Balammal has no right to alienate and encumber the properties and the daughters of Balammal also have no right to alienate and encumber the properties during the life time of Balammal. While so, the said Balammal, Govindammal and Solaiyamal had executed the sale deed in favour of one Muthusamy on 30.06.1952 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and no consideration was paid for the said Sale deed. The said purchaser Muthusamy had executed two mortgage deeds dated 30.06.1952 in favour of Balammal and another one in favour of Govindammal. The possession was not given to the said Muthusamy and it was remained with Balammal. Since the sale deed executed by Balammal and her two daughters is not valid and it was not acted upon, the said sale deed dated 30.06.1952 has to be declared as null and void. The said sale deed does not confer any title on the said Muthusamy and on his successors, the defendants.

4.3. After commencement of Hindu Succession Act , 1956, [for brevity, herein after referred to as Act] as per Section 14 of the Act, the said Balammal had become absolute owner of the prope