KOTTESWARI Vs. MURUGESA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, who failed to get a decree as prayed for in their suit and also failed in their attempt to challenge the dismissal of the suit before the lower appellate Court, have come forward with the present second appeal against the concurrent judgments of both the courts below non-suiting the appellants/plaintiffs for the reliefs sought for in their suit.

(2.) THE suit was filed after getting the leave of the Court to file the suit in forma pauperis for a declaration that the sale deed dated 23.04.1984 executed by Radhakrishnan, the father of the appellants herein, in favour of the second respondent/second defendant, was null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property described in the plaint 'C' schedule, on the basis of their contention that the said sale deed was obtained by fraud. After contest, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court (Court of District Munsif, Vellore) by a judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010. On appeal, the learned First Appellate Judge (Subordinate Judge, Vellore) by a judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 23 of 2011 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit. Hence, the appellants have come forward with the present appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds second appeal.

(3.) THOUGH the appellants/plaintiffs have chosen to provide three schedules titled 'A' 'B' and 'C' schedules in the plaint, the dispute between the parties is confined to the property described in plaint 'C' schedule. A perusal of the plaint schedules 'A' 'B' and 'C' will give an impression that 'A' schedule is a larger property and 'B' schedule is a part of the same and in turn property described in 'C' schedule is a part of the property described in 'B' schedule. Admittedly, the sale deed in question, namely the sale deed dated 23.04.1984, was executed by Radhakrishnan, who was the absolute owner of the subject matter of the said sale deed, which alone has been shown as the plaint 'C' schedule property. From the pleadings and the evidence adduced on both sides it is quite obvious that he had been highly indebted. The certified copies of the sale deed dated 23.04.1984, which is sought to be declared null and void, have been produced on both sides, and marked as Exs.A5 and B4 respectively. The recitals found in the said sale deed will make it obvious that due to heavy indebtedness, Radhakrishnan had to sell the property to the second respondent/second defendant under the said sale deed.