PERUMAL KONAR Vs. ESAKKI @ MOOKANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who had lost in both the Courts have filed the above Second Appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to Pitchaiya and Mookaiah, who are the sons of one Somasundara Pillai. They had mortgaged the property in favour of one Mooka Konar, who is the father of the defendant under Ex.A.1. Later, one of the sons of Somasundara Pillai viz., Mookaiah, sold his share of the property subject to the mortgage to Mooka Konar on 7/6/1963 under Ex.A.2. The property demised under Ex.A.2 is the suit property. The said Mooka Konar, sold the property on 10/5/1985 under Ex.A.3 in favour of one Muthammal, W/o.Subbaiah. The said Muthammal had sold the property on 26/9/1992 under Ex.A.4 in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant denying all the allegations set out in the plaint. According to the defendant, the document dated 10/5/1985 in favour of Muthammal is not true and the same is a forged document. Therefore, the subsequent purchase of the plaintiff from the said Muthammal is not valid.