J U D G M E N T

The respondents are the plaintiffs. The appellant is the third defendant and the respondents 8 & 9 are the defendants 1 & 2. The respondents 1 to 7 filed a suit in O.S.No.114 of 1995, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil for partition against the appellant and the respondents 8 and 9 and separate possession. After trial, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and decreed the suit and passed the preliminary decree. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the third defendant in the said suit has filed the present appeal.

2. According to the case of the plaintiffs, as per the plaint that the plaintiffs 1 to 7 and the second defendant are the children of Kalyanasundara Thevar, the first defendant is his wife. The said Kalyanasundara Thevar purchased the first item of the suit property under a registered sale deeds, dated 16.11.1967 and 12.06.1968 and from the date of purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. He paid the Tax also. The suit items Nos.2 to 5 are the ancestral properties. The said Kalyanasundara Thevar died on 21.03.1988. The plaintiffs 1 to 7 and the defendants 1 & 2 are the legal heirs of the Kalyanasundara Thevar and therefore, they are subject to the Hindu Succession Act. After the death of Kalyana Sundara Thevar, the plaintiffs 1 to 7 and the defendants 1 & 2 are coparceners under the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs 5 to 7 are the minors. The plaintiffs are entitled to 7/9th share and the defendants 1 & 2 are entitled to 2/9th share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 & 2 are jointly enjoying the suit schedule property. It has now come to light that the defendants 1 & 2 have wasted the joint family property with an intention of committing acts which are offensive or harmful to the plaintiffs. On 21.09.1994 the defendants 1 & 2 have sold the item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the third defendant and at that time the plaintiffs 5 to 7 are minors. They have sold the property without any permission from the Court. The defendants 1 & 2 have no right to sell the joint family property. The sale was not made for the welfare of the joint family or for the welfare of the minors. The sale is not legally valid because it is fraudulent. The value of the first item of the suit schedule property is very high but they have sold the property at a low price. The above said sale is not binding on the 7/9th share of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/9th share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs seeks for partition from the defendants but they have refused. Therefore, they have filed the suit for partition and for permanent injunction.

3. The defendants 1 & 2 are exparte before the trial Court. The third defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that the averments contained in the plaint are all false. Further, it is stated that the first item of the suit schedule property is a joint family property. The said property was purchased by Kalyanasundara Thevar and he maintaining the property along with joint family property as a Kartha. After the death of the Kalyanasundara Thevar, his eldest son the second defendant has maintaining the suit property as a Kartha of the family. The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 & 2 are not entitled to any share in the first item of the suit schedule property. It is false to state that the defendants 1 & 2 are jointly enjoying the suit schedule property. From the date of purchase on 21.09.1994 the third defendant has enjoying the property and after the date of purchase the plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2 are not entitled to joint possession. After the date of purchase, the third defendant has got the revenue records and Patta.

4. It is not correct to state that the defendants 1 and 2 sold the joint family properties in order to make harm to the plaintiffs. After the demise of Kalyanasundara Thevar, hi