RAMASUBBU Vs. KRISHNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants 4 to 6 against the concurrent judgment passed by the Courts below, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction and alternative relief of declaration and possession and for damages.

(2.) For better appreciation and understanding, the parties are referred to as per their in rank in the suit. The newly impleaded 7th respondent herein, who is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property from the third defendant, is hereinafter referred to as Subsequent Purchaser.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was allotted to their father by name Lakshmana Asari by partition and after his death, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying tax. On 12.09.1949 their father executed an Othi deed (Ex.A4) in favour of their mother Chinnamal and the same has not been redeemed. While so, the father of the plaintiffs sold the suit property to the first defendant by a registered sale deed dated 09.11.1955. As the said sale deed was executed by their father in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property without the consent of the plaintiffs and without redeeming the Othi deed, the said sale deed is not valid in law and he has no right to lease out the property to the 2nd defendant. In addition to the above, the plaintiffs have stated that the Will dated 10.12.1991, which is alleged to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 4 to 6, who are the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant, in suspicious circumstances, without even mentioning the name of the 3rd defendant, is not valid in law. Thus, they prayed to decree the suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative, declaration and possession of the suit property.