PON ESAKKI Vs. MUTHULAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi is the appellant herein. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also for recovery of possession.

(2.) The first respondent/plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed dtd. 31/7/1988 marked as Ex.A1 before the Trial Court. The plaintiff and her husband Muniyasamy had a strained relationship. According to the plaintiff, though Muniyasamy, her husband is not the owner of the suit schedule property, he had executed a power of attorney in favour of the second respondent dtd. 19/11/2001 marked as Ex.B3 and thereafter, the said power agent has executed a sale deed dtd. 22/9/2006 in favour of the appellant/second defendant. The first respondent/plaintiff claimed that the sale deed executed by the second respondent/first defendant in favour of the appellant/second defendant is null and void. In such circumstances, a suit was filed for declaration and for recovery of possession from the appellant/second defendant.

(3.) Before the Trial Court, the appellant/second defendant took a stand that she is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration in respect of the suit schedule property. Before the Trial Court, five documents were filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and the same were marked as exhibits A1 to A5. On the side of the first respondent/plaintiff, two witnesses were also examined, namely, the first respondent/plaintiff as well as another witness, P.W.2 by name, Thanes. On the side of the appellant/second defendant, six documents were filed and the same were marked as exhibits B1 to B6. Four witnesses were also examined on the side of the appellant/second defendant, namely, the appellant/second defendant and three other witnesses, D.W.2, the attesting witness to the sale deed by name Aathisamy, D.W.3, the Office Assistant in the Sub-Registrar's office and D.W.4, Arockiyasamy, a Sub Inspector in the Fisheries Department. Through the Sub Inspector of Fisheries Department (D.W.4), two documents were marked as exhibits X1 and X2.