J U D G E M E N T

The 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit seeking declaration that the Sale Deed dated 06.07.2001 executed by the 3rd respondent/1st defendant is null and void and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs also sought for partition of 2/3rd share in the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2 also sought for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property.

2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal in A.S.No.82 of 2014 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal and granted decree for partition, declaration and injunction against the alienation as prayed for. The prayer in respect of the absolute injunction was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the 2nd defendant in the suit has come up by way of this second appeal.

3. According to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, the suit property is ancestral property and hence, they are entitled to 2/3 share in the suit property. Originally the suit property was allotted to the share of their father R.Rangasamy namely the 3rd respondent. Originally there was a partition in the family between the father of the respondents 1 and 2 namely R.Rangasamy, his brother Duraisamy and grandfather Ramanna Gounder on 14.03.1991 and the suit property was allotted to the share of 3rd respondent under C-Schedule to the said partition document. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with 3rd respondent without any hindrance from third parties. On 16.07.2012, the respondents 1 and 2 came to know of the Sale Deed executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the appellant and therefore, they were constrained to file the suit seeking above said relief.

4. The 3rd respondent remained exparte. The appellant/2nd defendant filed a written statement and admitted that the suit property was allotted to the share of 3rd respondent-R.Rangasamy in the family partition dated

14.03.1991. It was averred by the appellant that the suit property was purchased on 06.07.2001 from 3rd respondent and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from that date onwards. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that the respondents 1 and 2 had knowledge about the sale by the 3rd respondent and therefore, they were not entitled to maintain the suit. It was also pleaded that the suit property was separate property of the 3rd respondent and his father-Ramanna Gounder. The appellant further stated in her written statement that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 failed to challenge the sale within three years from the date of attaining majority. Therefore, the suit was barred by limitation.

5. Before the Trial Court, the 1st respondent was examined as PW.1 and 6 documents were marked on the side of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs as Ex.A1 to A6. The appellant was examined as DW.1 and on her behalf, 4 documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B4.

6. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit property was alienated by the 3rd respondent/1st defendant in favour of the appellant for family necessity and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal in A.S.No.82 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court on the ground that the appellant failed to lead any evidence to establish that sale was for the benefit of the family by leading any evi