NAGARAJAN Vs. SELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1995 in O.S.No.196 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. THE first and second defendants are the appellants.

(2.) THE brief facts of the cases are as follows: THE suit properties originally belonged to Gurusamy Naidu and his wife Balammal. Gurusamy Naidu had a son named Chinnaiya Naidu. THE said Chinnaiya Naidu was leading an immoral life which prompted his parents to execute a Will dated 27.04.1952 in respect of the suit properties and other properties in favour of their grandson Govindarajulu. Under the said Will the said Govindarajulu is to enjoy the property for his life time without the power of alienation and the vested remainder is given in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 and 4 who are the great grandchildren of the testator. While Govindarajulu and his father Chinnainaidu were alive, dispute arose between them which culminated in filing a suit in O.S.No.191 of 1960. THE genuineness of the Will was disputed and ultimately, it was held that the Will is true, valid and binding. Chinnaiya Naidu preferred an appeal in A.S.No.11 of 1962. THE genuineness of the Will was upheld in the appeal. Govindarajulu became entitled to the properties as limited owner and he died on 01.06.1983 and he was also leading an immoral life and was not looking after the minor plaintiffs and the defendants 3 and 4. He had incurred number of debts. THEy are Avyavakariha debts and not for the benefits for the minors or the family. One Indhia Bai Ammal has filed a suit against the said Govindarajulu and obtained a decree. In pursuant to the decree, the properties were brought for sale and the first defendant has purchased Item No.1 and the second defendant has purchased Item No.2. THE said sales are null and void. THE alleged court auction is void. THE plaintiffs came to know about the alleged sale only in the year 1980. THE possession of the properties were with the plaintiffs' father and thereafter, it continues to be with the plaintiffs. Since the defendants are claiming right over the properties under invalid documents, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for declaration and consequential injunction.

(3.) THE learned III Additional Sub Judge, framed triable issues and on elaborate discussion decreed the suit as prayed for declaring that the plaintiffs and the 3 and 4th defendants are entitled for the suit property. Aggrieved by which, the first and second defendants have filed these two appeals on various grounds.