ARUMARAJ DEVADHAS Vs. K. SUNDARAM NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant in a suit for declaration of title and possession and for consequential permanent injunction is the appellant in this appeal by special leave. A suit was filed by the first respondent herein of whom Respondents 2 to 11 are the LRs. Respondent 12 herein was the second defendant in the suit. For convenience, we will refer to the parties by their rank in the suit.

(2.) The first defendant (Karunakaran Nadar) claimed that an extent of 14 cents in Survey No. 1817 was allotted to him at a partition. He sold the said 14 cents in Survey No. 1817, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property', in favour of the second defendant (Solomon Nadar) under a registered sale deed dated 1-8-1946. The second defendant executed a deed of possessory mortgage dated 16-1-1947 in favour of one Syeed Kannu. According to the plaintiff, as the said mortgage was not redeemed, Syeed Kannu became the absolute owner and on his death the suit land was inherited by his son Mohammed Ali. The said Mohammed Ali sold the property to the plaintiff (Sundaram Nadar) under a registered sale deed dated 23-12-1978. The plaintiff, thus, claims to be the owner of the suit property in possession thereof. According to him, as the defendants were admitting to interfere with his possession and challenge his title, he found it fit to file OS No. 110 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Kozhithurai for declaration that he is the son and is in possession of the suit property and for consequential injunction.

(3.) The third defendant (the appellant herein) on the other hand contends that the sale by Karunakaran, the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 1-8-1946 was sham and nominal. That the first defendant sold 10 cents out of Survey No. 1817 in favour of one Dasan Nadar under registered sale deed dated 22-5-1953. That Karunakaran had also mortgaged the very same 14 cents in favour of one Muhammed Haneefa on 16-2-1953 before the sale in favour of Dasan Nadar and the said Muhammed Haneefa had signed mortgage in favour of the second defendant Solomon Nadar. The second defendant had executed a release deed in favour of Dasan Nadar in regard to 10 cents purchased by him under a deed of release dated 1-8-1966 and this Dasan Nadar became absolute owner of 10 cents.