IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDERS RESERVED ON : 19.04.2022

PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON : 21.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

SECOND APPEAL NO.525 OF 2013

AND

MP NO.1 OF 2013

1. Ganesan (Deceased)

.. Appellant/2^nd Respondent/4^th Defendant

2. G.Vasantha

3. G.Maragatham

4. G.Maheswari

5. G.Baskar

6. G.Venkatesan

.. Appellants

*Appellants 2 to 6 brought on record as LRS of the

deceased sole appellant vide order of Court dt.04.03.2019

made in CMP No.1 to 3/2015 in S.A.No.525/2013)PRMJ)

..Vs..

1. Nagajothi

2. Krishnamurthy

3. Krishnaveni

4. Sathiya

5. Sarala

6. Mummoorthy

..Respondents 1 to 6/Appellants/Plaintiffs

7. Elumalai

..7^th Respondent/1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

8. Sathiyasoruban

9. Manikandan

..Respondents 8 & 9/Respondents 3 & 4/Defendants 5 & 6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.14/2012

dated 19.12.2012 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge,

Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree in OS.No.3/2007

dt.29.7.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif,

Tindivanam.

For Appellant

: Mr.N.Suresh

For Respondents

: Ms.J.Prithivi

for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

for R1 to R6

Mr.J.Hudson Samuel

for M/s.Paul and Paul

for R8 & R9

No Appearance for R7

J U D G M E N T

The 4^th defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2.Respondents 1 to 6/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the

relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 31.12.1989

executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd and 3^rd

defendants as null and void and for the relief of partition

pertaining to the “B” schedule property and for allotment of

5/6^th share in favour of the plaintiffs.

3.The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property

originally belonged to their grandfather Muniyan and he died

intestate leaving behind his son Ezhumalai, who is the 1^st

defendant in this suit. The 1^st defendant was doing agriculture.

He married one Krishnaveni and out of the said wedlock, the 1^st

and 2^nd plaintiffs were born. On her death, the 1^st defendant

married the 3^rd defendant and plaintiffs 4 to 6 were born to the

3^rd defendant.

4.The further case of the plaintiffs is that the 1^st

defendant started leading a wayward life and failed to maintain

the plaintiffs and was selling the properties unilaterally even

though the properties were in the nature of joint family

properties. The 1^st defendant sold the “A” schedule property in

favour of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants through a registered sale

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

deed dated 31.12.1989, marked as Ex.A1. Thereafter, the 1^st

defendant sold the 1^st item of the “B” schedule property in

favour of the 4^th defendant through a sale deed dated 8.6.1995,

marked as Ex. A2/B1. In the same manner, the 2^nd item of the “B”

schedule property was also sold in favour of the 5^th and 6^th

defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the sale deeds executed

in favour of defendants 4 to 6 by the 1^st defendant with respect

to the “B” schedule property was null and void and not binding

on the plaintiffs.

5.The plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants on

18.8.2006, marked as Ex.A6. The 4^th defendant gave a reply notice

dated 22.9.2006, marked as Ex.A13. Since the issue was not

getting resolved, the plaintiffs proceeded to file the suit

seeking for the reliefs mentioned supra.

6.The 4^th defendant filed a written statement. He took a

stand that the 1^st defendant as the Karta of the family sold the

1^st item of the “B” schedule in favour of the 4^th defendant

through a sale deed dated 8.6.1995. This sale deed was executed

by the 1^st defendant for himself and on behalf of his minor

children. The 2^nd plaintiff had also signed as a witness in this

document and the plaintiffs were