JUDGMENT

The appellants herein are the defendants 3 to 6 in the suit in O.S.No. 187 of 2010 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for the relief of partition of her share in the suit property against her father and brother/ 1st and 2nd defendants and the purchasers of the property/defendants 3 to 6 stating that the suit properties as described in the plaint schedule is the joint family property belongs to her father, her brother and herself equally having 1/3rd share, but ignoring her right over the properties, her father and her brother/1st and 2nd defendants sold a portion of the property in favour of defendants 3 to 5 through sale deed dated 15.07.2010.

Hence, she filed a suit for partition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The 1st defendant/father contested the suit stating that in order to construct a house, he borrowed a loan from the bank/third party. To discharge the loan, he was in need of money, and the defendants 3 to 5 have agreed to discharge the bank loan. Hence, as a security for the loan, the sale deed was executed in their name, but the loan was not discharged as they promised, besides, they created a document in favour of 6th defendant, thereby denied the purchase made by defendants 3 to 5. He also stated that there was no cordial relationship between himself and his daughter/plaintiff and he has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son/2nd defendant and also submitted that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The purchasers/defendants 3 to 5 submitted that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit properties with an extent of 2.05 acres out of total extent of 5.5 acres for a valid consideration and the plaintiff was having the knowledge about the sale transaction, but not raised any objection. Now, colluding with her father, she filed this vexatious suit and also submitted that the property was sold to 6th defendant during the pendency of the proceedings.

4. The trial court framed six issues and on considering the evidence as well as documents on either side, finally held that the properties are joint family properties and the defendants 1 and 2 have no right to execute the sale deed with boundaries, even otherwise the purchasers/defendants 3 to 5 not discharged the bank loan as they agreed and also as per the recitals of the sale deed (Ex.B1), the sale is not supported with consideration. Hence, the sale deed is not legally valid and unenforceable one, consequently, the sale deed stands in the name of 6th defendant also sham and nominal. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by granting 1/3rd share in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved over that, the purchasers/defendants 3 to 6 preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 10 of 2016 before the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, wherein the lower appellate judge independently analysed the evidence and facts, concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition in the joint family property and the purchase made by defendants 3 to 5 from defendants 1 and 2 was not supported with any consideration and the same would not binds the plaintiff even though the plaintiff residing at her grandmother's house, she being one of the co-sharer legally deemed to be in joint possession of the property. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share, thereby confirming the findings rendered by the trial court and also held that the settlement deed executed by her father in favour of his son/2nd defendant would also not binds the share of plaintiff and accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed confirming the trial court findings.

5. Challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below, the purchasers/defendants 3 to 6 have preferred this Second Appeal submitting that both the courts below failed to consider that neither the 1st defendant nor the legal heirs of 2nd defendant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, Ex.B1, but the trial court went beyond the scope