AMRITHRAJ Vs. INDIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, who lost in both the courts below, are the appellants.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff purchased the suit properties under three sale deeds dated 24.03.1966. Patta was also transferred in the name of the plaintiff and she has been paying kist. The defendants have no right whatsoever in the properties. The 1st defendant along with defendants 2 and 3 joining together, has fraudulently created a sale deed as if the plaintiff had conveyed the properties to the 1st defendant and registered the same before the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram by impersonation. The impugned document was executed on 30.05.1990. The plaintiff is residing at Chennai since 1960 and she came to know about the impugned document only in 1995 and she made a complaint with Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti as well as police. By virtue of the impugned document, the 1st defendant is attempting to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and hence, she filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction relating to the property. The defendants contended that the plaintiff conveyed the suit property to the 1st defendant on 30.05.1990 for a valid consideration of Rs.13,715/=. Patta was also transferred in the name of the 1st defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He had also dug a well and obtained loan from Primary Cooperative Bank to the extent of Rs.22,000/=. The plaintiff has not come forward with any suit to set aside the impugned sale deed. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief. The trial court framed 5 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-25 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-16 were marked. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Court, Tuticorin and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present second appeal.

(3.) The appellants / defendants have raised the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of grounds of appeal: