KOUSALYA RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. B.S. PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice and substituted service, there was no representation for the respondent and the respondent was also called absent. However, the order is passed on merits.

(2.) This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed in the Check Slip No.216/XXVII/N in Diary No.16 passed in O.S.No.212 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.

(3.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.212 of 2008 that was filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein seeking declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property was sold by way of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the averments of the plaint and submitted that the entire property was originally owned by the respondents 1 to 7. They sold 50% of the said property in favour of the plaintiff herein through their power of attorney one Daleelullah Khan and another 50% of the property in favour of one Suresh Kumar Bothra and his brothers. The petitioner/plaintiff, subsequently purchased the said 50% of the other property from Suresh Kumar Bothra and his brothers, thereby, the petitioner/plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire suit property. However, the respondents 1 to 7 executed a sale deed in favour of the 9th respondent herein through their another power of attorney the 8th respondent herein against law by cancelling the sale deeds that were executed in favour of the petitioner and the said Suresh Kumar Bothra and his brothers.