A subsequent purchaser cannot seek partition of property that has already been sold by rightful heirs unless the sale is declared invalid.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Sub-Court, Sankari (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court) in A.S.No.23 of 2011. This appeal was admitted on 30.04.2015. Following substantial questions of law were framed in this appeal for being answered at the time of final hearing:-

i. Whether the vendors of the appellant were entitled to 3/6^th share over the property of their father late Munia Nadar who died intestate as per Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, if so, the first appellate court correct in law in dismissing the suit for partition filed by the appellant in respect of the shares of the three daughters of late Munia Nadar?

ii. When Ex.A3 dated 15.05.1995 and Ex.A4 dated 13.09.2001 are not binding on the vendors of the appellant, since they did not sign the sale deeds, whether the first appellate court is correct in law in non-suiting the appellant's claim under the sale deed dated 17.09.2007 (Ex.A5)?

iii.Whether the First Appellate court is correct in law in ignoring the legal right of plaintiff's vendors under Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?”

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2014, the First Appellate Court had allowed A.S.No.23 of 2011 filed by first respondent (seventh defendant). A.S.No.23 of 2011 filed by first respondent (seventh defendant) against Judgment and Decree dated 05.09.2011 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 and had reversed the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif Court, Sankari (Trial Court).

3. To understand the scope of the dispute and to answer the questions of law raised and framed, it will be useful to refer to the factual background of the case. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court in O.S.No.130 of 2008 shall be referred for the sake of convenience.

4. O.S.No.130 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) against the defendants (respondents herein) to partition the suit schedule property into 6 equal shares and to allot three of such shares to the plaintiff (appellant herein).

5. The Trial Court by its Judgment and Decree dated 05.09.2011 decreed O.S.No.130 of 2008 and passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff (appellant). Aggrieved by the same, the seventh defendant (first defendant) had filed A.S No.23 of 2011 which was allowed.

6. The dispute centers around property measuring an extent of 1.51 Acres in Re-Survey No.375/4C-1 in Vellarivalli Village in Salem District (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Schedule Property). It was earlier purchased in the name of late Munia Nadar during his life time in the years 1964 and 1967 vide Ex.A1 dated 08.04.1964 and Ex.A2 dated 03.05.1967.

7. The total extent as per these two documents was 1.60 Acres. The plaintiff (appellant) claimed 50% share in the suit schedule property through his vendors, namely, the three daughter of late Munia Nadar and his wife Kaliammal (first defendant/ second respondent herein) named Thangammal, Nallammal and Marakkal (also referred to as plaintiff's vendors) vide Ex.A5 dated 17.09.2007.

8. Prior purchase of the undivided share in the suit schedule property by the plaintiff (appellant), entire extent in Ex.A1 dated 08.04.1964 and Ex.A2 dated 03.05.1967 were sold in two parcels to the seventh and eighth defendants vide Ex.A3/B4 dated 15.05.1995 and vide Ex.A4 dated 13.09.2001respectively.

9. The three daughters of late Munia Nadar and the first defendant (second respondent) named Thangammal, Nallammal, Marakkal were not party to either of the two sale deeds in Ex.A3/B4 dated 15.05.1995 and vide Ex.A4 dated 13.09.2001.

10. Thus, when the plaintiff's vendors later sold 50%