JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w order 41 & 41-A of Civil Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2010, passed in O.S.No.142 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV of Coimbatore at Tiruppur. Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w order 41 rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2010, made in O.S.No.142 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore.) 1. A.S.Nos.844 & 902 of 2010 are directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2010, passed in O.S.No.142 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for partition. 4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the plaintiffs are the daughters, the first defendant is the widow and the second defendant is the son of Chinnanachimuthu gounder son of Kaliappa gounder. Kaliappa gounder had another son by name Nachimuthu Gounder. On 16.11.1951, Kaliappa gounder, his wife Karuppakkal and his two sons above stated entered into a partition of their joint family properties by way of a registered partition deed in document no.1884/1951, wherein the A schedule properties described therein were allotted to Nachimuthu gounder and the B schedule properties described therein were allotted to Chinnanachimuthu gounder. Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons jointly sold a portion of the lands allotted under the abovesaid partition deed and had an extent of 34.05 acres of land and the two house sites and the abovesaid properties are described in the plaint A schedule. The first plaintiff was married on 16.02.1990 and the second plaintiff was married on 23.05.1994. The plaintiffs were unmarried daughters as on 25.03.1989 when the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990 came into force and thereby, the plaintiffs had become coparcerners with effect from 25.03.1989 along with Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons and thereby, the plaintiffs had become entitled to an undivided 1/5th share in the joint family properties from 25.03.1989. The plaintiffs were unmarried daughters as on 25.03.1989 when the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990 came into force and thereby, the plaintiffs had become coparcerners with effect from 25.03.1989 along with Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons and thereby, the plaintiffs had become entitled to an undivided 1/5th share in the joint family properties from 25.03.1989. On 11.06.1990 and 10.08.1960 Chinnanachimuthu gounder had executed registered settlement deeds in favour of the first plaintiff settling the properties described in the abovesaid settlement deeds and on 10.08.1990, Chinnanachimuthu gounder had executed a settlement deed in favour of the second plaintiff settling the properties in her favour as regards the properties described in the abovesaid settlement deed and the abovesaid settlement deeds were acted upon and the possession was delivered to the settlees and accepted by the settlees and thereby, the plaintiffs had become, in toto, entitled to an extent of 8.67 acres of land. Chinnanachimuthu gounder died on 31.08.1990. The plaintiffs demanded their brothers for partition of the joint family properties, however, the same had been postponed. On 15.02.1999, Palanisamy died intestate. Therefore, his 1/5th share in the joint family properties devolved upon his mother, namely, the first defendant. When the plaintiffs insisted for partition, the defendants came out with the case as if the properties had been already divided between Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons by way of a partition deed dated 27.02.1990. On a perusal of the abovesaid documents, the plaintiffs came to know that the joint family properties had been purported to be divided between Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons ignoring the plaintiffs and as the plaintiffs had already become coparceners in respect of the joint family properties as above stated, the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 is not valid and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Barring the properties settled in favour of the plaintiffs, still the family possessed an extent of 25.38 acres of land and two houses which are described in the plaint B schedule and therefore, the plaintiffs, in toto, are entitled to 6/25 share in the plaint B schedule properties. Barring the properties settled in favour of the plaintiffs, still the family possessed an extent of 25.38 acres of land and two houses which are described in the plaint B schedule and therefore, the plaintiffs, in toto, are entitled to 6/25 share in the plaint B schedule properties. Without prejudice to their claim of partition, according to the plaintiffs, in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would also put forth the case that inasmuch as the sons had already got separated from the coparcenary by virtue of the partition deed dated 27.02.1990, they were excluded from claiming their share in the properties allotted to Chinnanachimuthu gounder under the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 and accordingly, it is put forth that Chinnanachimuthu gounder was entitled to only 5.36 acres of land towards his 1/3rd share and he having settled an extent of 8.67 acres in favour of the plaintiffs, he had no land properties after the abovesaid settlement deeds and therefore, on the demise of Chinnanachimuthu gounder, the properties left behind by him is only his house and the plaintiffs are entitled to 4/9 share in the same and accordingly, the plaintiffs would put forth the case that they are alternatively entitled to claim 4/9 share in the item 2 of the plaint C schedule properties and accordingly, prayed for the appropriate reliefs. 5. The third defendant contested the plaintiffs' suit by filing a written statement and put forth the case that the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 has been specifically referred to in the settlement deed executed by Chinnanachimuthu gounder in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the abovesaid partition deed and put forth the claim that they are coparceners in respect of the joint family properties. The plaintiffs cannot blow hot and cold and the properties inherited by Palanisamy, on his demise, had been acquired by his mother, the first defendant and the first defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 16.09.2004, in respect of the properties in favour of her son Easwaran, the second defendant. The plaintiffs cannot blow hot and cold and the properties inherited by Palanisamy, on his demise, had been acquired by his mother, the first defendant and the first defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 16.09.2004, in respect of the properties in favour of her son Easwaran, the second defendant. The plaintiffs undoubtedly influenced the first defendant to revoke the settlement deed executed in favour of the second defendant abovestated and however, the first defendant again executed another settlement deed dated 19.12.2005 in favour of the second defendant and the second defendant in turn had gifted the properties in favour of the third defendant on 18.01.2006 and the plaintiffs have levied another suit in O.S. No.56/2007 for bare injunction in respect of the abovesaid properties. A male child was born on 20.03.2007 to the next friend of the minor third defendant and relatively, the new born male child is also a necessary party to the suit. The third defendant had also filed a suit against the second defendant in O.S.No. 310/2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the properties covered in the settlement deed dated 18.01.2006 and the same had been decreed on 09.04.2007 and the third defendant had also filed a suit for partition against the second defendant in respect of the other family properties in O.S.No.241/2006 and the preliminary decree had been passed in the said suit on 13.06.2007. The claim of partition sought for by the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint B schedule properties or in the alternative in respect of the plaint C schedule properties is not legally sustainable. The third defendant also disputed the claim of the plaintiffs that they had become coparceners by virtue of the amendment Act 1/1990 and according to the third defendant, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties as prayed for. The suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The defendants 4 and 5 challenged the plaintiffs suit contending that the plaintiffs have to prove that they are entitled to the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990 and according to them, Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons had effected partition on 27.02.1990 and Chinnanachimuthu gounder had subsequently settled a portion of the properties allotted to him in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, the abovesaid partition deed is legally valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and after 27.02.1990, there is no joint family. The first defendant succeeded to the estate of the deceased Palanisamy and had executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant on 16.09.2004 voluntarily, the second defendant was in the possession and enjoyment of the properties allotted to him under the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 and the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the owner of the entire extent of the plaint C schedule properties excepting the house properties is untenable and false. Further, according to the defendants 4 and 5, they had purchased the properties for valid consideration by way of a registered sale deed dated 21.12.2005 and 22.12.2005 as described therein and they are bonafide purchasers and in exclusive enjoyment of the properties purchased by them and invested huge amounts for improving the properties and hence, the abvoesaid sale deeds are true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and accordingly, contended that there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the abovesaid pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court for determination: 1. Whether the registered partition deed dated 27.02.1990 is valid, genuine and binding upon the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the registered settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed on 16.09.2004 is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the registered sale deed dated 22.12.2005 executed in favour of the 4th and 5th defendant are valid, genuine and binding by the plaintiffs and supported by proper consideration, the defendants 4 and 5 are the bonafide purchasers? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are the co-owners with defendants 1 to 3? 5. 3. Whether the registered sale deed dated 22.12.2005 executed in favour of the 4th and 5th defendant are valid, genuine and binding by the plaintiffs and supported by proper consideration, the defendants 4 and 5 are the bonafide purchasers? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are the co-owners with defendants 1 to 3? 5. Whether the suit properties are in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to benefit under Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition as claimed in the share from the B schedule property? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to ask alternative relief in the plaint? 9. What relief, if the plaintiffs are entitled? Additional issue: 1. Whether the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs were married on 16.02.1990 and 23.05.1994 respectively? 8. In support of the plaintiffs' case PWs 1 to 5 were examined, Exs.A1 to A29 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs 1 to 4 were examined, Exs.B1 to B25 were marked. 9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5 share in the remaining properties of item 1 and 2 of the plaint C schedule properties after deducting the lands comprised in the settlement deeds marked as Exs.A5 to A7 and accordingly, granted the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the plaintiffs claim of partition in respect of the other properties. Impugning the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the third defendant and the plaintiffs have preferred the abovesaid appeals independently. 10. The following points arise for determination in this first appeal: 1. Whether the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the settlement deeds dated 16.09.2004 and 19.12.2005 are true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the sale deeds dated 21.12.2005 and 22.12.2005 are true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and whether the defendants 4 and 5 are the bonafide purchasers? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for? 6. To what relief the plaintiffs/appellants in A.S.No. 902 of 2010 are entitled to? 7. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for? 6. To what relief the plaintiffs/appellants in A.S.No. 902 of 2010 are entitled to? 7. To what relief the third defendant/appellant in A.S.No.844 of 2010 is entitled to? Point Nos: 1 to 5: 11. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is found that the plaintiffs are the daughters, the first defendant is the widow and the second defendant is the son of Chinnanachimuthu gounder. It is found that Chinnanachimuthu gounder had another son by name Palanisamy. It is not in dispute that Kaliappa gounder and his two sons Nachimuthu gounder and Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his wife Karuppakkal had entered into partition of the joint family properties as per the registered partition deed in document No.1884/1951. According to the plaintiffs, in the abovesaid partition deed, A schedule properties described therein were allotted to Nachimuthu gounder and B schedule properties described therein were allotted to Chinnanachimuthu gounder. It is found that Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons had jointly sold the portion of the lands allotted under the abovesaid partition deed and the remaining properties available with the family of Chinnanachimuthu gounder had been described in the plaint A schedule. Now, according to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as they had been married on 16.02.1990 and 23.5.1994 after the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990 came into force, they are also co-parceners in respect of the properties held by Chinnanachimuthu gounder i.e., in respect of the plaint B schedule properties. Now, according to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as they had been married on 16.02.1990 and 23.5.1994 after the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990 came into force, they are also co-parceners in respect of the properties held by Chinnanachimuthu gounder i.e., in respect of the plaint B schedule properties. As regards the claim of the plaintiffs that they had married on the abovesaid dates, the plaintiffs have examined PWs 1 to 5 and considering the evidence adduced by PWs 1 to 5 in toto, as well as the marriage invitation cards projected by the plaintiffs marked as Exs.A3 and A4 and the photographs taken qua the marriage marked as Ex.A14 and also the documents marked as Exs.A17 and A18, the receipt issued for the payment of the marriage hall and other expenditures and also the factum that the defendants have not placed any contrary material to hold that the marriage of the plaintiffs had been celebrated on different dates as put forth by them, in all, it is found that the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs have established that their marriage had been celebrated only on 16.02.1990 and 23.05.1994 respectively and accordingly, it is found that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990, which came into force on 25.03.1989. The determination of the abovesaid issue by the trial Court being well founded, particularly, on the proper appreciation of the materials in right perspective and in my considered opinion, the same do no warrant any interference. 12. According to the plaintiffs, their father Chinnanachimuthu gounder had executed the settlement deeds dated 11.06.1990 and 10.08.1990 in their favour marked as Exs.A5 to A7 in respect of the properties belonging to them. In toto, it is found that by virtue of the abovesaid settlement deeds, Chinnanachimuthu gounder had settled an extent of 8.67 acres in favour of the plaintiffs. 13. The plaintiffs claim to be the coparceners in respect of the properties left behind by Chinnanachimuthu gounder described in the plaint B schedule putting forth the claim of partition with reference to the same. It is found that the defendants had projected the case that the partition had been already effected between Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons on 27.02.1990 itself. The copy of the abovesaid partition deed has been marked as Ex.B1. It is found that the defendants had projected the case that the partition had been already effected between Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons on 27.02.1990 itself. The copy of the abovesaid partition deed has been marked as Ex.B1. Now, according to the plaintiffs, the abovesaid partition deed had been executed in their absence and therefore, they also being the coparceners in respect of the joint family properties held by Chinnanachimuthu gounder, according to them, the abovesaid partition deed is not valid and binding upon them and they are entitled to ignore the same. However, the abovesaid case of the plaintiffs has been stoutly repudiated by the contesting defendants. According to the contesting defendants, when the plaintiffs have clearly pleaded that they are accepting the settlement deeds executed in their favour by Chinnanachimuthu gounder marked as Exs.A5 to A7 and when Chinnanachimuthu gounder had described that he had acquired the properties above stated only by virtue of the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 in clear terms without any ambiguity in the abovesaid settlement deeds and when according to the plaintiffs' case, they had accepted the settlement deeds and acted upon them, in such view of the matter, according to the contesting defendants, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to challenge the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 and therefore, according to them, the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. 14. In the light of the abovesaid rival contentions, when as above pointed out, the plaintiffs have not disputed the execution of the settlement deeds Exs.A5 to A7 in their favour by Chinnanachimuthu gounder and when they have also pleaded that they have accepted the abovesaid settlement deeds and acted upon them and infact also claimed that they have sold some portion of the properties pursuant to the abovesaid settlement deeds and when the settlement deeds abovestated clearly depict that the properties settled in favour of the plaintiffs by Chinnanachimuthu gounder had been derived by him only by virtue of the partition deed dated 27.02.1990, in such view of the matter, as rightly held by the trial Court, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold and the trial Court had rightly relied upon the decision reported in 2001 (2) CTC 641 – K.Jaganathan Vs. A.M.Vasudevan Chettiar and 12 others and correctly determined that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to feign ignorance of the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 and thereby, it is found that the plaintiffs are bound by the partition deed effected between Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons on 27.02.1990 and in the light of the abovesaid factors, the determination of the trial Court that the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs, do not warrant any interference. 15. The plaintiffs would also put forth the case that the sons of Chinnanachimuthu gounder having got separated by virtue of the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 and inasmuch as Chinnanachimuthu gounder had executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs marked as Exs.A5 to A7, according to the plaintiffs, the sons cannot lay any claim of share in the land properties and at the most, they would be entitled to claim share in the house properties described in the plaint C schedule and accordingly, prayed for the alternative relief. However, as rightly held and determined by the trial Court, despite the partition effected on 27.02.1990 between Chinnanachimuthu gounder and his two sons, when according to the plaintiffs, the plaint C schedule properties are the properties allotted to Chinnanachimuthu gounder in the abovesaid partition deed, on his demise, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 would operate and Chinnanachimuthu gounder having died intestate, with reference to the properties allotted to him under the abovesaid partition deed dated 27.02.1990, when he had settled certain properties in favour of the plaintiffs under Exs.A5 to A7, it is found that excluding the settled properties, in respect of the properties left behind by Chinnanachimuthu gounder, all his legal representatives would be entitled to claim their lawful shares and so viewed, it is found that the plaintiffs, at the most, as determined by the trial Court, would be entitled to claim 2/5 share in the remaining properties described in the plaint C schedule after deducting the lands comprised in the settlement deeds marked as Exs.A5 to A7. Therefore, the trial Court is found to be justified in declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5 share in the remaining properties of the plaint C schedule properties after deducting the land properties comprised in Exs.A5 to A7 settlement deeds. 16. Therefore, the trial Court is found to be justified in declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5 share in the remaining properties of the plaint C schedule properties after deducting the land properties comprised in Exs.A5 to A7 settlement deeds. 16. As regards the purchase of the suit properties by the defendants 4 and 5, it is found that the defendants have acquired certain properties by virtue of sale deeds dated 21.12.2005 and 22.12.2005. As rightly held by the trial Court, there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiffs that the properties purchased by the defendants 4 and 5 forms part of the properties allotted to Chinnanachimuthu gounder by way of Ex.B1 partition deed. In such view of the matter, when it is found that the defendants 4 and 5 had purchased the properties under the abovesaid sale deeds not allotted to Chinnanachimuthu gounder, in such view of the matter, the abovesaid sale transaction cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs and therefore, the trial Court is found to be correct in holding that the defendants 4 and 5 are bonafide purchasers of the land comprised in the abovesaid sale transaction. 17. In the light of the abovesaid discussions on point Nos.1 to 5, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitle to claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990. I further hold that the partition deed dated 27.02.1990 is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. I also hold that the sale deeds dated 21.12.2005 and 22.12.2005 are true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and that the defendants 4 and 5 are bonafide purchasers for value without notice. Inasmuch as the properties derived by Palanisamy, on his demise, would devolve upon his mother, the first defendant, accordingly, it is found that the settlement deed effected by her on 16.09.2004 in favour of the second defendant is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and after the execution of the abovesaid settlement deed, the first defendant would not get the legal entitlement to cancel the same and in any event, it is found that the first defendant had subsequently also executed another settlement deed in favour of the second defendant and in toto, I hold that the settlement deeds dated 16.09.2004 and 19.02.2005 is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. I therefore hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim partition and separate possession of the plaint C schedule properties alone as determined by the trial Court and accordingly, the point Nos.1 to 5 are answered. Point Nos: 6 and 7: 18. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2010, passed in O.S.No.142 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore are confirmed and resultantly, both the first appeals are dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.