GANAPATHY Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/First Defendant has projected this Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.11.1994 in O.S.No.170 of 1989 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

(2.) ON an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court while passing the Judgment in O.S.No.170 of 1989 on 10.11.1994 has among other things observed that 'it is not true to say that the suit property has been sold to the Appellant/First Defendant by the Arunachala Angurayar and further, it is also observed that the alleged Sale Agreement is not true and moreover, the First Respondent/First Plaintiff (Since Deceased) has purchased the suit house from the Third Respondent/Second Defendant for a valuable sale consideration and that the sale is a true and valid one and also that the Appellant/First Defendant is not entitled to get the benefits as per Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, etc., and resultantly, held that the Respondents 1 and 2/Plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of recovery of possession and decreed the suit with costs. The trial Court has also granted two months time for the Defendants to hand over the vacant possession to the Respondents/Plaintiffs and ordered the determination of mesne profits by means of a separate proceeding.

(3.) THE points that arise for determination in this Appeal are: i) Whether the Appellant/First Defendant is entitled to get the benefits under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? ii) Whether the purchase of suit property by the First Respondent/First Plaintiff as per Ex.A1 Sale Deed dated 07.09.1989 is a true and valid one? CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINTS 1 AND 2: