JUDGMENT :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the purported sale deed dated 18.09.1990 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is null and void and for consequential relief of partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 3/4th share in the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the sale  deed dated 18.09.1990 was valid only to the extent of 5/16th share and  granted, a preliminary decree for partition in respect of 11/16th share in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant has come before this Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is his father and the suit property originally owned by plaintiff's paternal grandfather Krishna Gounder @ Krishnasamy, by virtue of a registered French Notarial Partition Deed dated 27.06.1961. The patta and other revenue records were also stood in the name of Krishna Gounder @ Krishnasamy. He died intestate in the year 1976, leaving behind the second defendant in the suit and three daughters viz., Jeyalakshmi, Aranganayaki and Ranganayaki. The suit property had been enjoyed by the children of Krishna Gounder @ Krishnasamy after his death. The second defendant and his two sisters by name Jeyalakshmi and Aranganayaki had executed a release deed in favour of their another sister Ranganayaki on 03.11.2011 and by virtue of the said document Ranganayaki became absolute owner of the suit property. The said Ranganayaki sold the suit property to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 18.01.2012 and from that date onwards, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. When the plaintiff attempted to mutate patta in his name, the first defendant claimed title and interest over the suit property by alleging that he had purchased suit property from the second defendant on 18.09.1990. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained certified copy of the purported sale deed dated 18.09.1990 alleged to have been executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant.

4. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the second defendant had no right or title over the entire extent of the suit property and the sale deed relied on by first defendant was never acted upon. It was also stated that the suit property was family property of the second defendant and the plaintiff's vendor. In such circumstances, the first defendant would not get title over the entire suit property. It was also stated that at the most, the  first defendant can claim title only to the extent of 1/4th share of the second defendant in the suit property. It was also stated that sale deed dated  18.09.1990 was null and void in so far as 3/4th share excluding the share of second defendant. Since the first defendant attempted to alienate the suit property, the present suit has been filed seeking the above said relief.

5. The appellant/first defendant filed a written statement and had stated that the property was originally owned and possessed by one Ramasamy Gounder. After his death, his sons viz., Kuppusamy Gounder, Kandasamy Gounder, Duraisamy Gounder, Appai Gounder and Narayanasamy Gounder had inherited the suit property and they constituted a Hindu Communete, according to the Coromandel law applicable to the Hindus in Pondicherry. There was a partition in the family on 21.06.1961 by notarial partition deed and in the said partition, the suit property and other properties were allotted to the share of father of the second defendant viz., Krishnasamy Gounder. After the death of Krishnasamy Gounder, his son Ramayan, the second defendant herein had inherited the same and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same as rightful o