BAGGIAMMAL SINCE DECEASED Vs. K PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.3967 of 2003 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, are the appellants.

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the 2nd respondent is entitled to claim the sale deed in respect of the suit property from the 3rd defendant/ 3rd respondent herein, for surrender of vacant possession of the suit property and for mesne profits and for mandatory injunction directing the 4th and 5th respondents to remove the electric connection. THE case of the respondents 1 and 2 was that the 1st appellant was the mother and the 2nd appellant was the daughter and they executed a mortgage in respect of the suit property in favour of Krishnaveni Ammal on 22.8.1988 and also executed a demand promissory note in favour of Krishnaveni Ammal for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. THEreafter, to discharge the loans and for other family needs, the appellants along with other children of the 1st appellant sold the leasehold rights of the suit property along with a hut in favour of the 1st respondent by executing an un-registered sale deed dated 16.12.1988 and also put the 1st plaintiff/ 1st respondent in possession and ever since the date of unregistered sale deed the respondents 1 and 2 are in possession of the property and the appellants promised to execute the registered sale deed after the allotment of plot in their favour by the 3rd respondent and the 1st respondent also allotted the suit property in favour of the 2nd respondent who is her daughter under a memorandum of understanding dated 14.1.1989 and they have put up construction in the suit property and let out the properties to various tenants and in September 2002, the appellants trespassed into the property by break opening the lock and started residing in the property and also questioned the right of the respondents 1 and 2. THE appellants also filed O.S.No.6591 of 2002 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for injunction against the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore the suit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 for the relief as stated above.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 holding that the sale deed relied upon by the respondents 1 and 2 dated 16.12.1988 cannot be looked into for claiming title as it is an unregistered sale deed and except the same, the respondents 1 and 2 do not have any document to prove their title and rightly decreed the suit filed by the deceased 1st appellant and the first appellate Court without properly appreciating the admissibility of the sale deed dated 16.12.1988, relied upon the same, allowed the appeal filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and decreed the suit O.S.No.3967 of 2003 and dismissed the suit filed by the deceased 1st appellant in O.S.No.6591 of 2002 and therefore the Judgement and Decree of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside. THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal is whether the lower appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit O.S.No.3967 of 2003 on the basis of Ex.B7, the unregistered sale deed.