T.K. ARUN Vs. EZHALIVEERAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.330 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore is the appellant in the second appeal. The second defendant and the first defendant in the original suit are respectively respondents 1 and 2 in the second appeal. Admittedly, Balaraman, the second respondent/first defendant was the owner of the suit property and he executed Ex.A2 sale deed dated 30.04.1999 registered as Document No.881 of 1999 on the file of the Joint Sub-Register, Cuddalore in favour of T.K.Arun, the appellant herein/plaintiff. Subsequently, claiming to have unilaterally cancelled the said sale deed, Balaraman, the second respondent / first defendant, executed another sale deed in favour of the first respondent herein/second defendant on 27.10.2000 registered as Document No.2488 of 2000 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar No.I, Cuddalore. The said sale deed came to be marked as Ex.B3 in the suit. Even before the execution of Ex.B3 sale deed, the appellant herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.330 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore on 01.06.2000 against the respondents 1 and 2 herein for declaration of the appellant's/plaintiff's title to the suit property, for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profits. The suit came to be filed against the respondents 1 and 2 on the strength of the pleading that the first respondent herein/second defendant was giving out that he was in possession of the suit property under some arrangement with the second respondent/first defendant.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the respondents herein/defendants based on their averments made in the written statements filed by them separately. The second respondent herein/first defendant contended that the appellant/plaintiff and his mother prevailed upon the second respondent/first defendant to execute a sale agreement in favour of Thenmozhi, the mother the appellant/plaintiff; that though the said agreement came to be executed much later at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff and his mother, it was antedated to 12.06.1998; that even at that point of time, it was brought to the notice of the appellant/plaintiff and his mother that the possession of the property had been with the first respondent/second defendant and that still they forced the second respondent/first defendant to execute the sale deed dated 30.04.1999, marked as Ex.A2. It was his further contention that since the said sale deed was obtained by force and misrepresentation, ignoring the said sale deed to be invalid and honouring the commitment made to the first respondent/second defendant under a lease deed dated 15.10.1997 and a sale agreement dated 04.05.1998, he executed a registered sale deed conveying the suit property to the first respondent/second defendant on 12.06.1998. Based on the above said contentions the second respondent/first defendant contended that the first respondent/second defendant was conveyed a valid title and he was not a trespasser and the suit for declaration and recovery of possession filed against the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 2 and 1 was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The first respondent herein/second defendant filed a separate written statement contending that he got possession of suit property by virtue of a lease deed dated 15.10.1997, which was followed by a agreement for sale executed by the second respondent/first defendant in his favour on 15.11.1997; that in terms of the said agreement, he had got a sale deed dated 12.06.1998 executed in his name and as he had derived a valid title from the second respondent/first defendant and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the owner in his own right and that the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of his alleged title, recovery of possession and for mesne profit should be dismissed.