IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.511 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.24435 of 2024 Ayyavu ... Appellant/12^th Defendant -vs-

1. Sumathi ... Respondent/Plaintiff Mr.Ramalingam (Died) ... 1^st Defendant

2. Dhanalakshmi 3. Chandrasekar

4. Chinnaiyan

5. Dharbasayanan

6. Sathiya

7. Minor Vignesh

8. Rajakumari

9. Saravanan 10.Tamilarasi

11.Mohankumar

12.Lakshmi Sri ... Respondents/Defendants Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC r/w Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023 made in O.S.No.1 of 2020 (vide CNR No.TNVPOC0000012020) on the file of 1^st Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, Villupuram District and to dismiss the original suit.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Manohar For R1 to 3, 5, 6 to 10 : Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan For R4 : Refused For R11 : Left For R12 : No Appearance *****

J U D G M E N T

Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, setting aside the entire sale deeds, including Ex.A6 as null and void, the purchaser has come before this Court. The appellant was 12^th defendant in the suit.

2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff, claiming 1/7^th share.

According to the plaintiff, the property was originally allotted to one Manjini Gounder and he died intestate 90 years ago. After his death, his wife Amirtham Ammal, 1^st defendant and one deceased Rasu Gounder and another deceased Elumalai Gounder enjoyed the property jointly. Among the 1^st defendant and Rasu Gounder, there was an oral partition before 70 years and the suit properties were allotted to the 1^st defendant.

3. Defendants 2, 6 to 8 and 13 filed a statement, wherein it was admitted that the 1^st defendant was allotted properties orally. In the statement filed by the 13^th defendant, it was averred that there was a collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 10 and that the property was not a joint property.

4. The Trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, framed the following issues:

i) Whether the suit properties are joint family properties?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the settlement deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 10^th defendant dated 18.09.2012 as null and void?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the settlement deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of Mr.Krishnan dated 18.09.2012 as null and void?

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the settlement deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of 4^th and 12^th defendants dated 18.09.2012 as null and void?

v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the settlement deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of 5^th defendant dated 12.03.2015 as null and void?

vi) Whether the sale agreement executed by 4^th and 11^th defendants in favour of 13^th defendant dated 20.04.2018 is invalid and not binding the plaintiff?

vii) Whether the sale agreement executed by 3^rd and 5^th defendants in favour of 12^th defendant dated 04.10.2018 is invalid and not binding the plaintiff?

viii) Whether the settlement deed executed by the 9^th defendant in favour of 10^th defendant on 18.01.2019 is invalid and not binding the plaintiff?

ix) Whether the sale deed executed by the 10^th defendant in favour of 13^th defendant dated 06.02.2019 is invalid and not binding the plaintiff?

x) Whether the 13^th defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value?

xi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of preliminary decree of partition by allotting 1/7 share in the suit properties?

xii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 3 to 5 and 7 to 13 in restraining them in not alienating the suit properties?

xiii) To what other relief does the plaintiff is entitled for?

5. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, held that the properties are ancestral properties and while allotting