J U D G M E N T

The 4th defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2.Respondents 1 to 6/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 31.12.1989 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as null and void and for the relief of partition pertaining to the “B” schedule property and for allotment of 5/6th share in favour of the plaintiffs.

3.The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property originally belonged to their grandfather Muniyan and he died intestate leaving behind his son Ezhumalai, who is the 1st defendant in this suit. The 1st defendant was doing agriculture. He married one Krishnaveni and out of the said wedlock, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs were born. On her death, the 1st defendant married the 3rd defendant and plaintiffs 4 to 6 were born to the

3rd defendant.

4.The further case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant started leading a wayward life and failed to maintain the plaintiffs and was selling the properties unilaterally even though the properties were in the nature of joint family properties. The 1st defendant sold the “A” schedule property in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants through a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1989, marked as Ex.A1. Thereafter, the 1st defendant sold the 1st item of the “B” schedule property in favour of the 4th defendant through a sale deed dated 8.6.1995, marked as Ex. A2/B1. In the same manner, the 2nd item of the “B” schedule property was also sold in favour of the 5th and 6th defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants 4 to 6 by the 1st defendant with respect to the “B” schedule property was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

5.The plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants on 18.8.2006, marked as Ex.A6. The 4th defendant gave a reply notice dated 22.9.2006, marked as Ex.A13. Since the issue was not getting resolved, the plaintiffs proceeded to file the suit seeking for the reliefs mentioned supra.

6.The 4th defendant filed a written statement. He took a stand that the 1st defendant as the Karta of the family sold the 1st item of the “B” schedule in favour of the 4th defendant through a sale deed dated 8.6.1995. This sale deed was executed by the 1st defendant for himself and on behalf of his minor children. The 2nd plaintiff had also signed as a witness in this document and the plaintiffs were very much aware about the sale of the property in favour of the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant has alleged that the suit itself has been filed on the instigation of the 1st defendant and he took a stand that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the 1st item of the “B” schedule.

Accordingly, the 4th defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.

7.The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit through Judgment and Decree dated 29.7.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam in A.S. No.14 of 2012 . The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the findings of the trial Court, was pleased to allow the appeal through Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2012. The plaintiffs compromised the dispute with respect to the “A” schedule property with the 2nd and 3rd defendants and hence, the suit was not pressed insofar as the relief of declaration is concerned. The suit was decreed by the lower Appellate Court insofar as the “B” schedule properties are concerned and a preliminary decree was passed allotting 5/6th share in favour of the plaintiffs.

8.The 4th defendant aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, filed the present Second Appeal. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the 4th defendant expired and his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 to 6, who are prosecu