A.JOTHILAKSHMI Vs. V.GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.301 of 2009. The prayer in the suit is to declare the sale deed, dated 13.10.2003 executed by the third defendant in the name of the defendants 1 and 2 is void, abinitio and not binding on the plaintiffs and to declare their right over the suit property and for payment of mense profit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the children of the third defendant. It is stated that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs by virtue of the registered sale deed, dated 30.08.1994. The first plaintiff was born on 03.01.1988, whereas the second plaintiff was born on 06.04.1990. After they became majors, wanted to take possession of the schedule mentioned property leased out to the first defendant. Hence, a notice was issued on 02.12.2008 to the first defendant to surrender possession of the suit schedule property. From the reply dated 06.12.2008, they came to know that the third defendant sold the property under sale deed, dated 13.10.2003. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants 1 and 2 joined with the hands of the third defendant and fraudulently obtained the sale deed, when they were minor and hence, the sale deed is not binding on them.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the first defendant, which was adopted by the second defendant, they have denied the allegations of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the suit property is a joint family property of the plaintiffs and their father, third defendant. The third defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant on 09.03.2000 and thereby agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.4,14,000/- and also received Rs.2,00,000/- as advance. Further on 18.05.2001, the first defendant paid another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the sale agreement and after paying the balance sale consideration, the sale deed was executed on 13.10.2003 in favour of the first defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that on the date of sale agreement, the third defendant handed over the possession to the first defendant and the present suit is vexatious.