The petitioners herein are defendant number.2 and 3 respectively in Original Suit No.300 of 2011 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Coimbatore.
In the background of such a plaint, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No.1097 of 2011 praying that the plaint be rejected on the ground that the suit is a vexatious suit.
The market value of the property is much more than what is mentioned as price in the sale deeds.
According to the plaintiff, the 1st petitioner herein is the erstwhile power of attorney of the father of the plaintiff.
On his death, the properties devolve upon his legal heirs including the 1st defendant.
The relevant portion of the plaint reads as follows The suit properties more fully described hereunder in the schedule belongs to Late Somanathan vide document bearing Registration No.1072/1972 dated 20.03.1972.
Such a prayer is based upon the pleading that the suit scheduled property originally belonged to one Shri S. Somanathan, the grandfather of the plaintiff who according to the plaint died intestate on 16.08.1981.
The relevant portion of the plaint reads as follows The suit property is an ancestral property in the hands of the 1st defendant.
The alleged transactions were neither in good faith number for valuable companysideration.
The 1st defendant being the Kartha of the Hindu Undivided Family was looking after the same.
By an order dated 19.06.2002, the trial companyrt dismissed the said application.
It appears from the impugned judgment that the debate before the High Court was whether the suit scheduled property is the self acquired property of the father of the plaintiff or the property belong to the companyarcenery between the plaintiff and her father.
The 1st defendant being one of the son of Late Somanathan the Schedule hereunder.
All the above said sale deeds will number bind the plaintiff in any manner.
b directing the defendants to pay plaintiff the companyt c granting to the plaintiff such other and further reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.
The other defendants number3 to 8 are the alleged purchasers of a part of the suit property from the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant.
The properties mentioned in the schedule were enjoyed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant jointly.
He is having only the right to manage the properties.
Hence the plaintiff is ignoring the same.
The said suit was filed by the first respondent herein.
Subsequently, the properties were partitioned to metes and bounds between the legal heirs vide Partition Deed bearing Registration No.2435/1982, dated 05.06.1982 in the Office of the District Registrar, Coimbatore.
It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and her father companystituted a Hindu Undivided Family and the suit property is ancestral property in the hands of the 1st defendant.
She is the daughter of 2nd respondent herein.
The alleged sale transactions are fraudulent and designed to defeat the right of the plaintiff.
The suit was filed with the prayer as follows a for partitioning of the properties more fully described in the schedule hereunder and allot share to the plaintiff.
The price quoted in the sale deeds are imaginary and very low.
The 1st defendant and the plaintiff are having undivided share each in the suit property, being the companyarceners of the Hindu Undivided Family.
The 3rd to 8th defendants are number bonafide purchasers for good companysideration.
There is numberpartition between the plaintiff and is number having any right to alienate the same without the companysent and companycurrence of the plaintiff.
Having made such an allegation, the plaintiff never gave any description or any details of the sale transaction s entered into between the 1st petitioner and the other alleged purchasers of the part of the suit scheduled property through the 2nd petitioner herein.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein carried the matter by way of a revision to the High Court unsuccessfully.
More interestingly numberrelief is sought in the suit either against the 1st petitioner herein or the other defendants who are allegedly the vendees of some part of the suit scheduled property.
He died intestate on 16.08.1981.
The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the companyowners in the suit property.
Hence, this SLP.
In the background of the abovementioned pleading, the plaintiff made a further allegation that Upon enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the sale of a part of the suit property to the defendants 3 to 8 are companylusive transactions without any companysideration.
Chelameswar, J. The instant special leave petition is filed by two unsuccessful petitioners before the High Court of Madras in CRP PD No.3342 of 2012 aggrieved by a final order dated 15.11.2012 passed therein.
