IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI and C.M.P.No.16284 of 2025

1. K.Annojirao

2. A.Anil Kumar

3. A.Sunil Kumar ...Appellants/Defendants Vs.

R.Sampangi Reddy ...Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to allow the second appeal and to set aside the judgement and decree dated 19-11-2020 made in A.S.No.45 of 2019, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur and confirming the judgement and decree dated 07.03.2019 made in O.S.No.190 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikottai.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar For Respondent Mr.T.S.Baskaran

JUDGMENT

The second appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated

19.11.2020 made in A.S.No.45 of 2019 by the Additional District Court, Hosur.

2. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property and the other properties originally belonged to Krishnojirao and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. He along with his two sons Shankarrao and Annojirao (1^st defendant), divided all the joint family properties including the suit schedule property on 16.09.1991 in the presence of the villagers and the partition list was executed on the same day. As per the said partition list, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Shankarrao. Since the date of the partition, Shankarrao had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on 16.05.2007, Shankarrao and his son Prabhakarrao executed an agreement for sale, and in pursuance of the same, they sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 07.06.2007 for a valid consideration. Since then, the plaintiff has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The revenue records have also been mutated in the name of the plaintiff, and Patta No.67 and Adangal stand in the name of the plaintiff. The first defendant is the father, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants are the sons of the first defendant. The partition between the vendors of the plaintiff and the first defendant is accepted and acted upon. Defendants are living in a separate house. The first defendant had purchased some of the properties from the plaintiff's vendors admitting the partition. The first defendant is also a party to the partition deed dated 16.09.1991. Therefore, the first defendant is estopped from denying the partition. The defendants made an abortive attempt and trespassed upon the suit schedule property on 16.07.2008 and destroyed the crops of the plaintiff. The plaintiff with great difficulty resisted the said acts of the defendants. Hence, the suit for relief of.

4. The defendants no.1 to 3, per contra, would contend that the suit property and the other properties belonged to one Krishnojirao and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Krishnojirao had left behind not only two sons Shankarrao and Annojirao, but also four daughters namely Nirmala Bai, Susheela, Vasantha Bai and Vimala Bai as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate. The alleged partition and the partition list dated 16.09.1991 are denied. The plaintiff has not filed the original partition deed dated

16.09.1991.

5. The further case of the defendants is that the family of legal heirs of late Krishnojirao is still joint, and Shankarrao is not an absolute owner to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff unilaterally. As there is no partition by metes and bounds between the legal heirs of Krishnojirao, all his legal heirs are entitled to shares as per the Hindu Succession Act. The alleged sale deed dated 07.06.2007 is void to the extent of shares of remaining legal heirs and plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The defendants have raised Avarai crop in the suit land. Nirmala Bai, daughter of Krishnojirao, siste