SAMIKANNU NAIDU Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) THE suit property is an extent of 8 " cents comprised in Survey No.59/5, out of an extent of 70 cents, in which, there is a house also bearing door No.48-B. THE plaintiff claiming to be the owner of the said extent, under sale deeds dated 21.3.1961 and 13.2.1982, and contending that the defendant is attempting to disturb the possession and enjoyment, has filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) THE learned counsel Mr.S. Krishnasamy appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted, that the trial Court has committed an error in concluding that the settlement deed is not acted upon and therefore, the sale deed executed by Perumal Naidu is valid, which is against law, further contending that the sale deed executed by Muniyammal in favour of the defendant should have the sanction of this Court, since the same was executed by the natural guardian representing the erstwhile minors. In this view, according to the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, the first appellate Court is right in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.