DHANDAPANI Vs. LOGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their " share in the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE case of the appellants/plaintiffs was that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the first defendant, who is their father and the suit property was allotted to the share of their father under an oral partition between him and his brother. THErefore, the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to " share in the property and without any legal necessity, the first defendant/fourth respondent viz., their father sold the property to the second defendant and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs/appellants and they are entitled to claim their share viz., " share in the property. Hence, they filed the suit for partition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the sale in favour of the second defendant was not for family necessity and the sale was without getting permission of the court and therefore, they are not bound by the sale and hence, there is no necessity for them to pray for setting aside the sale. He further contended that the appellants also filed application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 seeking permission of this court to amend the plaint to include the relief of declaration that the sale deed Ex.B2 is not binding on the appellants and therefore, that application may be allowed and the appellants may be permitted to include the relief of declaration.