IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS Reserved on:24.06.2025 Pronounced on:.04.07.2025 Coram:

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Appeal Suit No.55 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.2185 of 2022

1.Minor B.Sadhana @ Kanishika

2.Minor B.Thejesh (Minors are represented by their mother Natural Guardian A.Lakshmi)

No.124/50, Vadamathathi Street, Tiruvannamalai Town and District. ..Appellants/Plaintiffs /versus/

1.K.Balamurugan, S/o Kesavan, No.117, Vadamathathi Street, Tiruvannamalai Town and District.

2.Kasiyammal, W/o Arumugam, No.44/100, Krishanan Street, Tiruvannamalai Town and District. .. Respondents/Defendants Appeal Suit has been filed under Order XLI, Rule 1 read with Section

96 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2021 made in O.S.No.53 of 2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

For Appellants :Mr.C.Umashankar For Respondents :Mr.J.Lordwin Bino for M/s K.Sumathi for R2 No appearance for R1 JUDGMENT Suit for partition laid by minors represented by their natural guardian mother Lakshmi claiming that the suit schedule property consisting of land and building belongs to one Narayanasamy Muthaliar, being the ancestral joint family property. Narayanasamy Muthaliar had four daughters and one son. Both Narayanasamy Muthaliar and his wife died long back. The property left by Narayanasamy Muthaliar intestate was in joint enjoyment and possession of his four daughters and only son, namely, Lakshmi, Karpagam, Parvathi, Durga and Kesavan. The daughters of Narayanasamy Muthaliar were given marriage during his life time and they were provided with seethana properties and their marriage was solemnised in a grant manner. After the demise of his only son Kesavan, the property has been enjoyed by the children of Kesavan along with four sisters of Kesavan. The plaintiffs are grant children of Kesavan born to his son Balamurugan, who is the first defendant.

2. According to the plaintiffs, their father Balamurugan had drunkard.

Contrary to their interest, he had sold away the suit property to the second defendant, as if he is the absolute owner of the suit property. However, the plaintiffs contended that through Balamurugan, the first defendant, had fraudulently obtained a compromise decree of partition in O.S.No.123 of 2002 as if the suit properties were allotted to him exclusively in the partition between him and his sisters. Claiming that the property left by Narayanasamy Muthaliar has to be shared between his four daughters and one son. From out of 1/5^th share of Kesavan, his two daughters and one son namely, Parameswari, Radha and Balamurugan are entitled to 1/3 share each from the share of Kesavan.

3. While so, there was a suit for partition filed by Balamurugan against his two sisters namely, Parameswari, Radha and also against four sisters of his father Kesavan(paternal aunties). The suit ended in a compromise wherein the property shown in the present suit was allotted to Balamurugam. Being an ancestral property, the plaintiffs, who are the children of Balamurugan are entitled for 1/3 share each. However, suppressing the right of the minors, Balamurugan, the first defendant has alienated the entire property in favour of the second defendant. Hence, the suit has been filed for division of the property into three equal shares and to allot 1/3 share to each of the plaintiffs.

4. The suit been contested by the second defendant on the ground that after the compromise decree in the partition suit in O.S.No.123 of 2002 the first defendant Balamurugan is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. The suit property has lost the character of ancestral co-parcenary property, in view of the Court decree. After the compromise decree, the first defendant Balamurugan sold the property to the second defendant on 19.01.2011 for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,56,000/-. At that time, only the first plaintiff was born and the second plaintiff was not even born. The sale was done with the knowledge of the