IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR A.S.No.1011 of 2012

1. Chandra

2. Kalaiarasi

3. Selvi

4.Santhi ...Appellants Vs.

1.Ilavarasi

2.Ilavarasan @ Radhakrishnan (R2 declared as major and the guardian R1 viz., Ilavarasi discharged from the guardianship vide court order dated 22.12.2021 made in CMP.Nos.14727 and 14728 of 2021 in A.S.No.1011 of 2012)

Munusamy (died)

3. Valarmathy

4. Rajarani (R4- Given up as no relief is sought by the appellants against R4) ...Respondents PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1&2 r/w Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.9 of 2010 dated 31.07.2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.

For Appellants : Mr.D.Ravichander For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathyaraj for R1 & R2 R3-served- No appearance R4-Given up

JUDGMENT

The defendants 4 to 7 in a suit for partition are the appellants. The respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs filed a suit seeking cancellation of the partition deed dated 11-08-2006 entered between them and the first defendant in that suit namely Munusamy. They also sought for a preliminary decree for partition declaring 2/3^rd share in the suit A and B schedule properties. Later, the plaintiffs not pressed their relief in respect of “B” schedule properties based on compromise and continued the suit in respect of “A” schedule properties. The Trial Court, partly decreed the suit, by cancelling the partition deed dated 11- 08-2006 and granting preliminary decree for partition of two-third share in respect of “A”schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 4 to

7 have come before this Court by way of this appeal.

2. According to the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs, the suit A and B scheduled properties belonged to a joint family consisting the plaintiffs and their father, the first defendant. The plaintiffs have got 2/3^rd share in the suit properties. When the plaintiffs were minor, the first defendant, in order to grab the entire property, created invalid documents. The suit properties were originally allotted to first defendant in a partition deed dated 03-04-1995. In the sale deed dated 11-08-2006 executed by first defendant in favour of third defendant, he admitted the said fact. The 1^st defendant created a self-styled partition deed on 11-08-2006 between himself and the plaintiffs. In the said partition deed, the minor plaintiffs were represented by their mother, the 2^nd defendant. In the said partition deed, all agricultural lands were included in “A” schedule to the partition deed allotted to the share of the first defendant. Only one vacant site was included in “B” schedule to the partition deed allotted to the share of the minor plaintiffs. On the very same day, the joint family properties, which were not included in the partition deed, were sold to 3^rd defendant by the 1^st defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- by joining the 2^nd defendant as guardian of the minor plaintiffs. It was stated by the plaintiffs that there was no occasion for the minor plaintiffs to demand partition on 11-08-2006 and the valuable properties were allotted to the share of the 1^st defendant. A small vacant plot was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs and therefore, the partition deed was not valid and equitable one. It was also stated that the 2^nd defendant, mother of minor plaintiffs, was not entitled to act as a guardian of the minor plaintiffs when their father, first defendant, who was also the manager of the Hindu Joint Family, was alive. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the partition deed was a void document as they were not represented by proper guardian. The properties allotted to the 1^st defendant under above partition deed was sold by him to defendants 4 to 7 on 16-04-2009. The 1^st defendant acted against the interest of the minor plaintiffs and created documents. Therefore, the above said suit was filed. 3. The defendants 1, 4 to 7 filed a wr