DEVENDRAN Vs. MUNUSWAMY REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in A.S. No. 91 of 1984 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Vellore in O.S.No. 1189 of 1981. Plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed for cancelling a registered sale deed dated 30 5.1968 so far as it relates to the right, title interest of the plaintiffs, to direct division of the suit properties into six equal shares and allot three such shares to the plaintiffs for appointing a Commissioner to divide the property and for the enquiry into the mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12, C.P.C. According to the plaintiff, the schedule mentioned property originally belonged to Venugopal Reddiar, father of the plaintiffs who died intestate in the year 1966 leaving behind his widow, mother of the plaintiff, Loganathan, brother of the plaintiffs, Vasantha, sister of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs as his heirs at law who had inherited the property. The plaintiffs and the said Loganathan, Vasantha and their mother Thanjammal are equally entitled to the plaint schedule property as co-owners. The plaintiffs are entitled to 3/6th shares in the plaint schedule property. The defendant is the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs and he had obtained a sale deed surreptitiously without informing the purport and import of the sale deed dated 30.5.1968 in respect of the suit property for a recited consideration of Rs 6,000/- from the plaintiff's mother Thanjammal as their guardian by sharp practice and deception, abusing his position and relationship. The said sale deed is a fraudulent one and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, mother had no power to convey and the said sale deed is a fraudulent one and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, mother had no power to convey the interest of the plaintiffs in any event. The property was worth more than Rs 15,000/- even on the date of the sale and the property had been sold for ludicrously low amount. The defendant was bound to render income from the said property to the plaintiffs and to pay their share of income. The plaintiffs issued Lawyer's notice on 6.12.1980 calling upon the defendant to surrender the share of the plaintiffs. The defendant sent a reply on 10.12.1980 containing false and frivolous allegations. The father of the plaintiffs never left any debts and the recitals contained in the sale deed are not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs were obliged to pray for cancellation of the said registration of the sale deed.

(3.) The defendant filed three written statements. In the first written statement, he, contended that he had helped the family of the plaintiffs and other sharers by coming to their rescue and purchased the property for their family necessity and their benefit and the sale in his favour was valid and for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs ought to have impleaded the vendor of the defendant. The sale deed executed by the Thanjammal for herself and on behalf of her minor children was true and binding on the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs left behind considerable debt at the time of his death. After his death, various creditors got their promissory notes executed in their favour. The widow Thanjammal mortgaged the property to Kandhamal for the sake of maintaining her children and various creditors were requested for the return of the promissory notes. The defendant was afraid that all the lands and house properties may be brought to sale in execution and she offered the defendant to sell the property. The value of the property purchased by the defendant was very much low and considering the plight of the family, the defendant agreed to buy the property for Rs. 6.000/- and it was false to allege that the property was worth more than Rs. 15,000/-. The defendant discharged the mortgage debt of Kanthammal besides the promissory debts of Srinivasa Reddiar, Govindasamy Mandiri and others. All these debts were contracted for family necessities and for the welfare of the minors. Ever since the purchase, the defendant was in exclusive and continuous possession of the property investing heavy amounts and had effected lot of improvements. He had also dug the well and got electricity service connection. Suit has been filed at the instigation of the evil advisers.