RAMASWAMY DIED Vs. PAPPAMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 to 6 in O.S.No.67/83 filed the second appeal. Pending second appeal, the first appellant, the fourth appellant and the first respondent passed away. The first appellant's legal representatives have come on record as appellants 6 to 9. The fourth appellant's legal representatives have come on record as appellants 10 to 13. The first respondent's legal representatives have come on record as respondents 3 to 4. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein against her mother, the second respondent herein and appellants 1 to 5 for setting aside the sale deeds executed by her mother, the second respondent, in favour of appellants 1 to 5 and for recovery of possession of the suit properties.

(2.) Her case was as follows: The first defendant is her mother. The plaintiff and her husband were living in Madukkarai, Coimbatore District. Her husband was an employee in Madukkarai Cement Factory. He resigned his job and the plaintiff and her husband settled down in Tiruppur. The plaintiff had brought Rs.10,000/- with her and both the plaintiff and her husband entrusted the amount with the first defendant, who is also the plaintiff's husband's sister for purchasing vacant sites. She purchased the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff ever since the purchase, is in possession and enjoyment by paying quit rent. Due to some misunderstanding between her brother, the plaintiff's husband, and the first defendant, in order to harass the plaintiff's family and to cause loss to her, the first defendant sold the properties described in Schedule B to the plaint, impersonating herself as the plaintiff and as owner of the properties to defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6. The first defendant had no manner of right over the suit properties. The sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. They are invalid and no title can be passed. When the plaintiff came to hear some rumour about the dealings, the first defendant escaped from the plaintiff;s house with the original sale deeds to Gobichettipalayam, where her other daughter Thulasiammal is residing. Thulasimamal is the daughter of the first defendant through her second husband one Raju. The plaintiff came to know about the sale from the Sub Registrar's Office. She searched for the first defendant. Till December, 1981 she could not find out the whereabouts of the first defendant. At the time of filing the suit, the first defendant was at Tiruppur. As the first defendant was trying to sell the A Schedule property as if it belonged to her, the suit came to be filed.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement admitting the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and stating further as follows: The plaintiff, the first defendant and all the family members were working at Madukkarai Cement Factory. The first defendant came to Tiruppur because of old age and was living there. Defendants 2 to 4 approached her and promised her to get some loan from Government. They wanted her to come to the Registrar's Office, Tiruppur, and there they asked the first defendant to put her thumb impression in several papers and further advised her to represent herself as Pappammal stating that only then loan would be disbursed. This defendant believed their words, put her thumb impression and represented before the Officer that her name was Pappammal. Two days later, defendants 2 to 4 paid Rs.1000/- to the first defendant and said that the amount was the loan sanctioned by the Government. Thereafter, this defendant took the amount and went to reside with her daughter through her second husband at Gobi. Only after the suit, the first defendant came to know that defendants 2 to 4 had cheated her by getting the sale deed executed in the name of Pappammal. The first defendant has nothing to do with the suit properties. She was made a scape goat for the benefit of defendants 2 to 4. She had no intention to cheat the plaintiff at any time.