MINOR VINODHINI Vs. A.TAMILARASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of Judgment in O.S.No.34 of 2005 dismissing the suit filed by S.T.Arumugam Mudaliar on behalf of his minor grand children for partition.

(2.) The plaintiff Arumugam Mudaliar has three sons viz., Karthikeyan, Tamilarasan (1st defendant) and Balamuthu. Minor plaintiffs are the daughters of the said Tamilarasan (1st defendant). The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. A family partition was effected under Ex.A.1 partition deed (dated 26.3.1990) and in the said partition, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the 1st defendant. Since there was dispute in respect of the allotment of properties in respect of Survey Nos.219 and 220/1, Karthikeyan filed suit in O.S.No.90 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Vellore for declaration and injunction and the said suit was decreed in part after full trial. The appeal preferred against the said judgment in A.S.No.81 of 1996 was dismissed. In respect of the same survey numbers, there was another round of litigation by the 1st defendant Tamilarasan and his another brother Balamuthu in O.S.No.729 of 1996.

(3.) Case of plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant is not looking after the family and is acting against and adverse to the interest of the minors. The 1st defendant is a liquor addict and taking advantage of his addiction to liquor the 3rd defendant had taken two sale deeds Ex.A.8 (dated 16.7.2004 and Ex.A.9 (dated 16.9.2004) from the 1st defendant in respect of the property in Survey Nos.219 and 220/1. The 3rd defendant had taken documents incorporating the self serving recitals based upon Ex.A.1 partition deed. Further case of plaintiff is that Exs.A.8 and A.9 sale deeds are very much against the interest of the minors. In view of amended Hindu Succession Act, minor plaintiffs, being daughters of defendants 1 and 2, have become entitled to equal shares and that each of the minor defendants are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties. Since minor plaintiffs are not eo'nominee parties to the sale deeds Exs.A.8 and A.9 ,minor plaintiffs are not bound by Exs.A.8 and A.9 sale deeds and therefore the sale deeds are not liable to be set aside the sale deeds. Alleging that he is taking care of minors, on behalf of the minor plaintiffs, their paternal grandfather Arumugam Mudaliar filed the suit seeking for division of properties into three equal shares and to allot two such shares to the plaintiffs.