AMMANIAMMAL Vs. M PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1994 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.603 of 1989, which was filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants seeking partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) NIGGARD and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint would run thus:One Moola Gounder and his wife Sellammal (fifth defendant) had two sons, viz., the defendants 1 and 2 and three daughters, viz., the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. The suit property described in the schedule of the plaint belonged to the said joint family comprised of Moola Gounder and his two sons, viz., D1 Palanisamy and D2 Arumugam. Moola Gounder died on 28.12.1971 intestate consequently, his 1/3 rd share in the suit properties devolved upon his wife D5 and his four children, viz., the plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 and they have been in joint possession of the suit property. Consequently, the suit for partition has come to be filed. Such joint possession and cultivation of the suit property causes great hardship whereupon the plaintiff demanded partition which ended in a fiasco. On 01.12.1989, she ascertained from defendants 1 and 2 that they were having no intention of partitioning the property whereupon she reliably learnt that defendants 1 and 2 were making arrangements to alienate the suit properties to D6. Subsequently, she came to know that defendants 1 and 2 sold certain portions of the suit properties in favour of defendants 7 to 11 and such sales are void and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE seventh defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by D8 to D11 in support of the statement filed by D2. He would also contend that the sale deed dated 15.12.1985 executed by D2 in his favour relating to a portion of the suit property is valid. THE fact remains that D7 to D10 purchased various portions of the suit properties as per sale deeds dated 15.12.1985 and as per them they are the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.