J U D G M E N T

This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Sivagangai, dated

28.09.2020 in O.S.No.54 of 2015.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants.The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of ¾ shares in the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing the timber in the suit property or from altering the physical features of the suit property; the plaintiffs and the first defendant are the daughters of one VendiyappaThevar, who was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with other properties; the character of the properties is ancestral in nature and hence, it is joint family property; patta stood in the name of VendiyappaThevar; after marriage, the plaintiffs and the first defendant were living with their husbands in their respective matrimonial homes; in the year 2010, there was a family arrangement; under the said arrangements, the suit properties alone were kept as joint properties and other properties were divided into 5 shares; plaintiffs and the first defendant were given with four shares and the remaining one share was kept for VendiyappaThevar; on 13.08.2014, VendiyappaThevar died;subsequent to the death of VendiyappaThevar also, the plaintiffs and the first defendant were enjoying the suit property jointly, however, the first defendant colluded with the defendants 2 to 4, had attempted to create documents and deprived the plaintiffs’ right to get the share in the suit properties;hence, the plaintiffs requested the first defendant to partition the suit properties and allot their ¾ share; since the first defendant refused, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition.

3. The first defendant remained ex-parte. The third defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 4; the third defendant resisted the suit by denying his collusion with the first defendant; as per the contention of the third defendant, VendiyappaThevar had entered into a sale agreement with the second defendant on 24.01.2010 and agreed to sell the suit properties to him or his nominees for a valid consideration; on 09.11.2001, he also executed a general power of attorney in favour of the second defendant and recognized her as his power agent; it was told by the plaintiffs’ father that the sale was made for the joint family expenses; in fact, a house was also built by the father VendiyappaThevarwith the sale proceeds and the marriage expenses of his daughters was also met; in view of the power deed given in favour of the second defendant, he executed the sale deed in favour of the third defendant and possession was also given to him; the revenue records have also been mutated in the name of the third defendant;the third defendant executed a settlement deed on 06.12.2010 in favour of the fourth defendant and the fourth defendant had taken possession and enjoyment of the suit property; the oral partition as alleged by the plaintiffs is false; the plaintiffs have colluded with the first defendant and filed the suit for getting unlawful enrichment; the plaintiffs are not in joint enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the court fee paid is not correct.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge has framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to ¾ share in the properties?

ii. Whether defendant No.4 is entitled for right in the suit schedule properties?

iii. Whether the court fee paid is correct?

iv. To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and two documents were marked as Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and eleven documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11. At the conclusion of the trial and on consideringthe ma