V SHANTHAKUMARI Vs. G SAMBANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Suit has been filed, seeking declaration that the impugned Partition Deed, dated 05.01.2006 created by the defendants 1 to 3 herein and registered as Document No.47 of 2006 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai and the consequential Sale Deed dated 11.04.2008 executed by the third defendant in favour of the defendants 4 and 5 registered as Document No.1392 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai in respect of the suit property are sham and nominal and are not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of partition of the schedule mentioned properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to value, and allot 1/6th share therein to each of the plaintiffs herein and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties, pursuant to the preliminary decree and put the plaintiffs in possession of their respective shares and for costs.

(2.) The plaintiffs, viz., V.Shanthakumari, G.Logasundari and L.Parameshwari, and the first, second and third defendants viz., G.Sambandan, G.Gajendramurthy, G.Thirunavukkarasu, are sisters and brothers. They are daughters and sons of late M.Govindarajan. Late M.Govindarajan, had acquired several properties particularly (i) house land, bearing Plot No.3605 in 'M' Block, Anna Nagar East, Chennai - 600 102. and (ii) Agricultural land in Survey No.83/1 to an extent of 0.56.50 hectares in Kondapuram Village, Arokonnam Taluk, Vellore District. These two properties are subject matter of the present suit. It had been stated in the plaint that during his life time, he had equal affection towards his children. It had been further stated that their mother, viz., Krishnaveni, died in the year 1989. Mr.Govindarajan, died intestate on 07.08.1991. It had been stated that the plaintiffs used to visit plaint, Item '1' of schedule, viz., Land and Building property at Plot No.3605, M-Block, Arignar Anna Nagar East, Chennai, even after death of their parents and they totally trusted the first, second and third defendants, who were their brothers.

(3.) The first, second and third defendants stated that they wanted partition of the property and for that purpose, they suggested that the first item of suit property mentioned above were mortgaged to raise funds to pay the due share of the plaintiffs at market rate. Thereafter, plaintiffs were asked to sign in documents and they were made to sign the documents in an hurried manner. The documents were prepared by the first, second and third defendants. The plaintiffs, as stated above, trusted the first, second and third defendants. However, from August 2011, the first, second and third defendants changed their attitude. Thereafter, in the second week of September 2011, it was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the first, second and third defendants had actually prepared a partition deed in respect of first item of suit property, viz., land and building at Arignar Anna Nagar and got the same registered as Document No.47 of 2006 on 05.01.2006 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai.