S. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. MURUGAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal has been brought by the unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 against whom a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein not to alienate and also not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property was decreed. As against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, when appeal was filed by the appellants 1 and 2, the first appellate Court accepting the case of the plaintiff/respondent also confirmed the judgment and decree.

(2.) (i)The plaintiff/respondent said to have purchased the suit property from one Padma, daughter of Kiruba Sankara Iyer on 31.5.1991 for valid consideration and a sale deed was also registered on 05.7.1991. Since then,the plaintiff/respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the suit property is an old house situated in Punjai Manikat having 0.42 cents with the compound wall, the first appellant herein, close relative of plaintiff's vendor -Padma when attempted to alienate the property which has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff for more than 12 years, in favour of the second defendant without any right, the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent on 4.3.2003 seeking permanent injunction not to alienate and also not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) THE trial Court considering the will dated 21.9.1938 executed by late Venkatrama Iyer, in favour of the first defendant also came to the conclusion that the will was not executed as contemplated under Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. Again, the trial court, while considering the question as to whether the first defendant had been really in possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit property, taking judicial note of the fact that neither the first defendant nor the second defendant had filed any document to show their possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit property, by also admitting the admission made by D2 that he purchased the suit property after knowing pretty well that the suit property had been already sold in favour of the plaintiff, held that the second defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for consideration and on that basisheld thatthe second defendant had not purchased the property but only litigation.