J U D G M E N T

The appeal suit on hand is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2016 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in O.S.No.593 of 2010.

2. The appellants in the appeal suit are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents in the appeal suit are the defendants in the suit.

3. The suit was instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking declaration that the Partition Deed dated 28.05.1983 is null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs besides for partition of suit property and allotment of two shares to the plaintiffs and permanent injunction against the defendants 2 to 9 from alienating and encumbering the suit property.

4. The suit has been filed claiming that the suit schedule property, an ancestral property, originally belonged to one Pattiyanna Gounder and that he died during the year 1951, leaving behind his son Peria Gounder. Pattiyanna Gounder's wife Marakkal also died during the year 1983. Their son Peria Gounder died on 29.12.1994, leaving behind the first defendant as wife, and defendants 2 to 6 and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as his sons and daughters, claiming that suppressing the legal heirs and facts, a Partition Deed in Doc.No.2201 of 1983 was executed and registered on 28.05.1983 among Periya Gounder and defendants 1 to 3, which according to the plaintiff, was either a fabricated one or obtained fraudulently from the Periya Gounder, the plaintiff has sought for declaration and partition.

5. The plaintiffs would also claim that the property acquired by Peria Gounder is an ancestral property and that all the legal heirs of Peria Gounder are entitled for legal right over the property. The plaintiffs would claim that the Partition Deed (Document No.2201/1983) entered into among the defendants 1 to 3 and Peria Gounder was against the law that was in force at the time of execution of the said Partition Deed and therefore, is not binding on the legal heirs of Peria Gounder. Consequently, the Release Deed dated 24.02.2010 (Document No.1004/2010) executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as well as the Release Deed dated

10.03.2010 (Document No.1384/2010) executed by the defendants 2, 7 and 8 in favour of the 9^th defendant and the Release Deed dated 11.03.2010 (Document No.1385/2010) executed by the 9^th defendant in favour of the defendants 2, 7 and 8 are not binding on them as they were in furtherance of Partition Deed Document No.2202/1983, which according to the plaintiffs, is not binding on them. The plaintiffs would further claim that, during September 2009, the plaintiffs approached the defendants for partition, they refused to accede to the demand and stand that they have already partitioned the suit property. The plaintiffs obtained a certificate copy of the said Partition Deed and filed the suit for partition.

6. The second defendant filed written statement and it was adopted by the defendants 7, 8 and 9 in and by which the first defendant would admit that the suit property is an ancestral property and that the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants died on 28.05.1983 besides that the said Peria Gounder and his sons Manjukutty viz., the second defendant and Palanisamy, the third defendant along with their mother Karuppakkal entered into Partition Deed registered as Document No.2202/1983. The defendants 2 and 3, who were allotted Schedule 'B' and Schedule 'C' properties under the said Partition Deed were in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue records were also stand in their name. The second defendant would also claim that he has sold the house that was allotted to him to one Mr.Mani about 25 years ago. The second defendant would also claim that agricultural property allotted under the said partition, was mortgaged by him with Vellanaipatti Primary Cooperative Bank on 04.04.2001. The said mortgage was discharged by him by availing loan from Saravanampatty Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank on