P RAJU Vs. PERIASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful Plaintiff is the Appellant. The Appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S. No. 688 of 1980 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Trichy. The trial Court decreed the suit, which has been reversed by the lower appellate Court. Formulating the following questions of law, the Appellant has preferred this Second Appeal:

(2.) Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to one Appakkannu, who had 3 sons, namely Dayanaselvam, Manickam and Kutti, of which one of the sons, namely Kutti died intestate. Pitchaikkannu is the son of Dayanaselvam and Baby Ammal is the wife of Pitchaikkannu. Manickam, the other son of Appakkannu had two sons, by name Mani and Jayaraj. The suit property was mortgaged in favour of one Palaniammal, who in turn made it over to her husband Mookan. Manickam and his two sons executed a sale deed dated 17.07.1975, for the entire property. Even though the name of Baby Ammal has been shown in the sale deed, admittedly she has not signed any document. Thereafter, she executed an agreement -Ex.A.2 in favour of the purchasers under Ex.A.1, namely Rajagopal Pillai and Baby Ammal. The Plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said Rajagopal Pillai and Baby Ammal. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the mortgage has been redeemed by his vendors. Therefore, seeking title based upon Exs.A.1 and A.2, Plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) The Defendant purchased the suit property, which is half share of the property originally belonged to Appakkannu from Baby Ammal, who had executed a registered sale deed under Ex.B.1 dated 23.04.1980, for herself and on behalf of her minor children. Thereafter, under Ex.A.5 dated 21.05.1980, the sale deed executed in favour of the Defendant was cancelled. Since cancellation was unilateral, the Defendant contended that the suit property only belonged to him.