SIRUMBAYEE; MINOR SEMBAYEE; MINOR THIRUPATHY Vs. SEERANGAMMAL; THIRUVENGADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit has been filed by the appellants, who are defendants 3 to 5 in the Suit, as against the decree and judgment, dated 30.06.1994, made in O.S.No.356 of 1983, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirapalli.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed in the suit is referred in this appeal.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, filed a Suit for partition and other reliefs. Briefly the case of the plaintiffs stated in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are the sisters of the 1st defendant, who are the children of one Samundan and his wife Sembayee. Both Samundan and Sembayee were died 1-1/2 years and 5 years ago respectively. Originally Samundan owned "A" Schedule (five items), totalling 56 cents of Punja Lands, as his ancestral properties. The income from the "A" schedule properties were not sufficient even for maintenance of the family. From out of the income from lease hold land and brokerage, the entire "B" Schedule properties were purchased by Samundan for the benefits of members of the family in his name as well as in the name of his wife. Samundan also advanced loans to 3rd parties for interest and from out of the income, he had constructed a pacca terraced house. Therefore, the entire "B" schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the deceased Samundan and his wife Sembayee. Till the death of Samundan, the entire suit properties were enjoyed all the members of the family including the plaintiffs and 1st defendant. After the death of Samundan, at the instigation of his wife, the first defendant has sold the lands in Item 1 and 3 of "B" schedule i.e., 1 Acre 9 cents out of 3 acres 51 cents in S.F.No.331/4 and 1 acre 24 cents, out 6 Acres 39 cents in S.F.No.338/10, totalling 2 acres 33 cents, situated in Kallai Village in favour of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was fully aware that the 1st defendant alone was not the absolute owner of the properties and the plaintiffs are also entitled to equal share in the properties. Therefore, the 2nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. Since the plaintiffs are not parties, the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and hence, no necessity to set aside the sale deed. At the time of death of Samundan, the family had no debts and hence, there was no need and necessity to alienate the properties without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs.