SOURIRAJ Vs. RASU UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.07.1995 made in A.S.No.135 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1992 made in O.S.No.529 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Thanjavur.

(2.) THE appellants as plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property stating that originally, the suit property is originally belonged to one Pappu @ Savarimuthu Udayar, who is the paternal grandfather of the 1st plaintiff and he has executed the registered settlement deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 25.09.1982 which was duly executed, accepted and acted upon. In pursuance of the settlement, he is in possession and enjoyment. THEre are three shops, one shop has been in the occupation of the defendant and the other two shops are under the other two tenants. Now, the defendant, who is the tenant has claiming title under one sale deed dated 03.11.1982, alleged to be executed by Pappu alias Savarimuthu Udayar in favour of the plaintiff and he claimed for compulsory registration of the alleged deed in his favour. THE said the document is not true and genuine. THE defendant has kidnapped the said Pappu @ Savarimuthu Udayar on 02.11.1982 and detained in a lodge at Tanjore and he got the sale deed to be executed. Hence, the appellant has given a complaint and then only he was secured and there is no need or necessity for executing the sale deed. THE vendor of the defendant died during the proceedings of compulsory registration of the alleged sale deed and he document in favour of the defendant had been ordered to be registered. Since at that time, the plaintiffs were not bring on record as Legal Representative of the deceased grandfather in the said proceedings, the order of compulsory registration is not binding the plaintiffs/appellants. Since the defendant is disputing their title to the property, they have come forward with the suit for declaration of title and injunction.

(3.) AT the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the lower appellate court misread or omitted to consider the oral and documentary evidence on record in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court? 2. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the settlement deed Ex.A1 is not valid or that its due execution has not been proved in accordance with law?