BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN S.A.(MD)No.363 of 2018

1.M.Veerappan (died)

2.R.Indira @ Nachammal

3.Sivagami

4.Sethuraman

5.Chittal (AA3 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased first appellant vide court order dated 13.04.2023 made in CMP(MD)No.11196, 11199 & 11201 of 2022)

... Appellant -vs-

1.M.Palaniappan

2.M.Venkatachalam ..Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2018 made in A.S.No.32 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 made in O.S.No.170 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.

For Appellants ... Mr.VA.Shanmugaraj (A2)

Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan (AA3 to 5)

For Respondents ... Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan (R2)

JUDGMENT

The second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2018 in A.S.No.32 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 in O.S.No.170 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.

2. The plaintiffs had originally filed the above second appeal.

Pending appeal, the first appellant/first plaintiff died, and the legal heirs were brought on record as the appellants 3 to 5.

3. The parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

4. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to one Muthuveerappan. Muthveerappan had two sons, Veerappan and Palaniappan, and one daughter, Indira @ Nachammai.

Muthveerappan died intestate, and his wife also predeceased him. Pursuant to the death of Muthveerappan, the plaintiffs and the first defendant, who are the legal heirs of Muthveerappan, had inherited the suit property and had been in joint possession and enjoyment. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant, Palaniappan, without conveying his intention to sell his 1/3 share and giving the first right to the plaintiffs to purchase his share, in view of the preemptive right granted under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had clandestinely sold his 1/3 share in favour of the second defendant on 15.12.2011. Since the sale has been executed by the first defendant when the preemptive right was available to the plaintiffs, the sale is void. Therefore, the plaintiffs had come up with the suit seeking to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant as null and void after issuing a paper publication on 13.03.2013.

5. The defendants had resisted the suit by filing a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs that they were not informed about the intention of the first defendant to sell his 1/3 share. Further, it is the contention of the defendants that since the relationship of the plaintiffs was not cordial and there was an urgent need for the first defendant to convey his property to meet out the marriage expenses of his daughter, and since the sale could not be completed with the plaintiffs, he had executed the sale in favour of the second defendant. It is the further contention that the claim made by the plaintiffs is not within time, and therefore, they sought dismissal of the suit.

6. During trial, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Pethaperumal as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On the side of the defendants, both the defendants themselves were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2, but they have not marked any documents.

7. The trial court, after analyzing the evidence, came to the conclusion that though the plaintiffs were having a preemptive right, to exercise their right, they ought to have filed the suit within a period of one year from the date of sale. Since the suit has been filed after nearly two years, the claim made by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, and the suit is dismissed in respect of the claim of declaration. However, since the plaintiffs were ha