The court upheld the validity of property sales despite claims of mental incapacity due to improper legal procedure, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to legal requirements in such claims.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit by the common judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in O.S.No.8 of 2018 and O.S.No.142 of 2019, have filed A.S.(MD)No.98 of 2025. The same plaintiffs were the defendants in O.S.No.142 of 2019. The said suit was decreed by the common judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in both the suits, O.S.No.8 of 2018 and O.S.No.142 of 2019. They have filed A.S.(MD)No.97 of 2025.

2. O.S.No.8 of 2018 had been filed seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

3. O.S.No.142 of 2019 had been filed seeking recovery of possession in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property and permanent injunction restraining interference with possession in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property. It is pertinent to mention that the suit schedule properties in both suits are the same.

4. Pending the appeals, the appellants filed C.M.P.(MD)No.17134 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.97 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to receive certain additional documents as evidence.

5. They also filed C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3825 and 3826 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No. 97 of 2025, seeking stay of a portion of the common judgment and permanent injunction to protect their possession with respect to the ‘A’ schedule property.

6. The suit schedule properties comprise land measuring a total extent of 7,974 sq. ft. situated at Pulivalam Village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. A building consisting of a ground floor and a first floor stands on the said land. The ‘A’ schedule property pertains to the first floor of the building, which is in the possession of the appellants, while the ‘B’ schedule property pertains to the ground floor, which is in the possession of the respondent in A.S.(MD)No.97 of 2025, Mohammed Bilal.

O.S.No.8 of 2018 [III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli]:-

7. The suit had been filed by three plaintiffs, Vijayalakshmi, her minor son, and her minor daughter, against her mother-in-law, Punithavathy, and against Mohammed Bilal, who had purchased the properties under a sale deed dated 03.04.2017 executed by the first defendant. The plaintiffs had also impleaded the Sub-Registrar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, as the third defendant.

8. The suit had been filed seeking a preliminary decree to divide the suit schedule properties into eight equal shares and to allot three shares to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had also sought consequential reliefs of (i) restraining the registration of any further document relating to the suit schedule properties, (ii) granting permanent injunction to protect their possession, and (iii) awarding costs of the suit.

9. In the plaint, it was contended that the suit properties originally belonged to one Ponnymani Ammal, who had executed a settlement deed dated 28.09.1995 in favour of her son, Raju. The said Raju had a son named Raja. His mother was Punithavathy, the first defendant. The first plaintiff, Vijayalakshmi, was the wife of Raja and, therefore, the daughter-in-law of the first defendant.

10. It was further contended that after the demise of Raju, the properties devolved upon his wife, Punithavathy, and his son, Raja. The husband of the first plaintiff, Raja, was stated to have executed a settlement deed dated 07.06.2006 in respect of his half share in favour of his mother, Punithavathy. Consequently, Punithavathy became the absolute owner of the suit properties. However, the plaintiffs contended that the said settlement deed was sham and nominal and not binding on them.

11. The husband of the f