JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]

The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem are the appellants in the above appeal.

2. The suit in O.S.No.150 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of their 3/5^th share in all the suit properties.

3. It is the case of plaintiffs/appellants in the plaint, that the suit properties belonged to one Kaligounder who died about 15 years ago. It is admitted that the said Kaligounder died leaving behind his two sons, Ramasamy and Subramaniam, and three daughters namely the plaintiffs/appellants.

4. It is admitted in the plaint that the wife of Kaligounder predeceased him. Therefore it is stated that the plaintiffs as his legal heirs as daughters of Kaligounder are entitled to 3/5^th shares since it is admitted that the suit properties are the absolute properties of Kaligounder. 1^st defendant is the son of Ramasamy and 3^rd defendant is his daughter. Wife of Ramasamy, predeceased him. It is stated that Subramaniam also died on 15.02.2007 leaving behind his son, the 2^nd defendant, wife, the 4^th defendant and a daughter who is impleaded as 5^th defendant. 7^th defendant is the son-in-law of 1^st plaintiff. It is also stated that their brothers namely Ramasamy and Subramaniam along with the 1^st plaintiff/1^st appellant and others were running a Sago Factory in partnership with the name ‘O.K.R. Sago Factory’. Though the O.K.R. Sago Factory was closed long back, it is stated that partners sustained a heavy loss in the business.

5. It is the further case of the appellants that the 7^th defendant is the son-

in-law of the 1^st defendant. It is stated that the brothers of plaintiffs by name Ramasamy and Subramaniam borrowed a huge amount from a finance company belonging to the 6^th defendant and the documents of title in respect of the suit properties were also handed over to the said finance company run by the 6^th respondent. It is the case of plaintiffs that the 6^th respondent besides taking signature of borrowers in blank pronotes, blank papers and blank stamp papers took an Agreement of Sale in respect of suit properties as a security for the loan on 20.10.1997.

6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the 6^th respondent fabricated the Agreement of Sale in respect of the suit properties in the name of the 6^th respondent who was also one of the partners of the finance company. The agreement dated 20.10.1997 was described as a fabricated document. It is admitted by the appellants that a subsequent agreement was also executed on 14.10.1999 extending the time for performance. It is further admitted that at the time of extending the time for performance by fresh Agreement of Sale, a Power of Attorney was executed by Ramasamy and Subramaniam, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 on the same date in favour of the 7^th defendant. It is contended by the plaintiffs/appellants that the Power of Attorney was also intended only as security for the due discharge of the loans due to the 6^th respondent. Stating that the plaintiffs had nothing to do with the loan obtained by the brothers of plaintiffs, but they were joined in the execution of the Power of Attorney document at the request of their brothers and also the 7^th defendant the suit was filed.

7. It is the case of the appellants that defendants 1 to 7 have colluded together and executed a Sale Deed in respect of the entire suit property in favour of the 8^th defendant on 18.09.2007 for the alleged consideration of Rs.8,28,000/-. It is admitted that the 3^rd defendant is the daughter of Ramasamy and defendants 4 and 5 are the wife and daughter of one Subramaniam, the other brother of the plaintiffs. Though it is admitted that defendants 3 to 5 also executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the 6^th defendant, the Sale Deed in favour of the 8^th defendant executed by the 7^th defendant was questioned only on the ground that the two brothers of plaintiffs