COMMON JUDGMENT

These Appeal Suits have been preferred challenging the common judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, dated 12.07.2018 made in O.S.No.25 of 2015 and O.S.No.57 of 2016.

2.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.57 of 2016, which was filed for the relief of specific performance and the defendant in O.S.No.25 of 2015, which was filed for the relief of partition.

3.The summary of the pleadings of the parties made in O.S.No.25 of 2015 are as follows:-

3.1.The suit property was jointly purchased by the first plaintiff and the defendant on 25.11.1977 under a registered sale deed; hence, they are entitled to half share each; they were in joint enjoyment of the same; they jointly constructed building by contributing funds jointly; the first plaintiff was in need of money, hence, she sold her half share of the suit property to the second plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2010; the sale was concluded on the understanding that the first plaintiff would hand over her share in the buildings either by sale or otherwise at a later point of time; thus the plaintiffs and the defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property.

3.2.The first plaintiff is an illiterate; her sisters, namely Athammal and Arukkaniammal filed a suit for partition of their property in O.S.No.323 of 1998; the defendant, her sister Muthulakhsmi and the husband of Muthulakshmi, namely Velusamy used take the first plaintiff to the advocate's office for the purpose of the case; during that course, they had obtained the thumb impression on stamp papers by representing that they were needed for case purposes; by misusing those stamp papers, the defendant colluded with Muthulakshmi and her husband Velusamy and fabricated a sale agreement in respect of the property of the first plaintiff; the defendant, Muthulakshmi and her husband / Velusamy filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sub Court, Karur on the basis of a concocted agreement; later the defendant allowed the suit for dismissal; in the said suit, the defendant pleaded that the suit property was orally divided between herself and the first plaintiff and the northern half was allotted to the first plaintiff; but actually no oral partition had taken place between the first plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit property; the first plaintiff never executed any sale agreement in favour of the defendant; since the defendant is acting in collusion with Muthulakshmi and Velusamy, the first plaintiff thought it fit to divide the suit property; after sending the pre-litigation notice, she had filed the suit for partition.

4.The defendant contested the suit by admitting her relationship with the first plaintiff and that the suit property was jointly purchased by the first plaintiff and the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1977; however, it is stated by the defendant that in the year 1993, the suit property was divided in an oral partition in the presence of one Thambi Ramesh and Velusamy; in the said partition, the southern half was allotted to the defendant and the northern was allotted to the first plaintiff; the defendant had put up construction in her southern half and paying municipal tax and electricity charges; the first plaintiff agreed to sell her northern share to the defendant and entered into a sale agreement dated 09.11.2007; since the first plaintiff failed to perform her part of contract, the defendant filed O.S.No.76 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sub Court, Karur; the first plaintiff fraudulently created another document dated 09.07.2010 in favour of the second plaintiff and hence, she was impleaded as a party to that suit; the defendant was not a party to O.S.No.323 of 1998, hence, there is no necessity for her to take the first plaintiff to advocate's office; since the property had already been divided through oral partition, the suit itself is not maintainable and it should be dis