NALLANGI KONAR Vs. KUMARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.

(2.) This Second Appeal is filed by the 2 nd defendant/Nallangi Konar in the suit aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit O.S.No.387 of 1996 was filed by the Kumaresan through his mother against Chinnasamy Konar and Nallangi Konar (Appellant herein) for declaration and injunction in respect of suit property.

(3.) According to the plaint, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property which was purchased in his name from one Pichayee on 24.11.1995 for valuable consideration. The said Pichayee is the daughter of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff vendor Pichayee got the property through settlement deed dated 06.06.1983 executed by her father, the 1st defendant and same was sold by Pichayee for consideration of Rs.33,000/- to the plaintiff on 24.11.1995. After the alienation of the property by her daughter, the 1st defendant with ulterior motive on 07.12.1995 cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of his daughter Pichayee. The said cancellation deed is void, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. However, after illegal and invalid cancellation of the settlement deed, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 joint together and tried to disposes the plaintiff forcibly. Hence, the suit for declaration and consequential injunction is prayed for.