J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)

Initially the 3rd respondent viz., Saraswathi was shown as 2nd appellant. Subsequently, by the order of this Court dated 08.06.2022 made in C.M.P.No.13839 of 2016, she was transposed as 3rd respondent. The appellant is 2nd defendant, the 3rd respondent is 3rd defendant and their father Krishnasamy Gounder was the 1st defendant in O.S.No.166 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, filed by the respondents 1 & 2 for partition and permanent injunction.

2.Challenging the preliminary decree granted to respondents 1 & 2 that they are entitled to 2/5th share jointly in the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the appellant from encumbering the share of respondents 1 and 2, the appellant filed the present appeal.

Case of the respondents 1 & 2:

3.The respondents 1 & 2 are daughters of Krishnasamy Gounder, the 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.166 of 2012, who died pending suit. The appellant herein is son, 3rd respondent is another daughter of the said Krishnasamy Gounder.

3(a).The suit properties are ancestral properties allotted to Krishnasamy Gounder, 1st defendant in the suit in a partition effected on 26.03.1973, between the 1st defendant, his brothers Arumuga Gounder and Pechiappa Gounder. In the partition deed dated 26.03.1973 it has been stated that properties are ancestral properties. The respondents 1 & 2 are in joint possession of the suit properties as coparceners along with 1st defendant, appellant and 3rd respondent. The 1st defendant was carrying on agricultural activities and was giving share to the respondents 1 & 2.

3(b).The respondents 1 & 2 after their marriage are residing in their matrimonial home. They demanded the 1st defendant to partition the suit properties and allot their share. The 1st defendant was avoiding partition of suit properties. The respondents 1 & 2 came to know that the

1st defendant is trying to create documents to deprive their interest in the suit properties. In the 2nd week of March 2012, the respondents 1 & 2 approached the office of the Sub Registrar, Negamam and found out that 1st defendant by deed of sale dated 16.12.2009 bearing Document No.2056 of 2009 alleged to have sold the suit properties to one M.Thangavel for a sum of Rs.8,54,200/-, who is father-in-law of his son, the appellant herein. The said M.Thangavel, by the another sale deed dated 09.01.2012 executed the same to the appellant herein. The 1st defendant has no right to sell the suit properties. The respondents 1 & 2 are not parties to the said sale deed and the said sale deed is not binding on the respondents 1 & 2. The sale is void ab-initio and respondents 1 &

2 have every right to ignore the sale deed.

3(c). Subsequently, the said M.Thangavel by the sale deed dated

09.01.2012 purportedly sold the entire suit properties to the appellant, who is his son-in-law for a sum of Rs.8,54,200/-. This sale deed is also void ab-initio and the respondents 1 & 2 have right to ignore the same. The two sale deeds are created with a view to defeat the rights of the respondents 1 & 2 over the suit properties.

3(d).The two sale deeds are bogus and no sale consideration would have been passed. The sale deed in favour of the appellant is suspicious and would not create any right over the suit properties in favour of the appellant. When the respondents 1 & 2 sought an explanation from the 1st defendant, he and appellant challenged them that they cannot get their legitimate shares. The 1st defendant and appellant knowing that respondents 1 & 2 are taking legal proceedings are trying to further encumber on the suit properties to confuse things and avoid proper partition.

3(e).The suit properties are ancestral properties. The 1st defendant is Kartha of the family. The properties are not partitioned as per amendment to Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the respondents 1 & 2 have got every right to demand partition as they are coparceners