KAVI ESWARI Vs. MUNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit are the appellants before this Court. The second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 25/1/2012 passed in AS.No.7 of 2011 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District, reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 23/12/2009 in O.S.No.27 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this Second Appeal, are as follows:

(3.) According to the plaintiff, originally the suit property was his ancestral property. The plaintiff along with his father and mother sold a portion of the suit property to one Papammal through registered sale deed dtd. 5/10/1972 for a sum of Rs.760.00. The plaintiff along with his father sold the remaining portion of the suit property to one Chinnasamy through registered sale deed dtd. 2/8/1978 for a sum of Rs.600.00. The said Chinnasamy sold the property to Papammal on 31/3/1986 for a sum of Rs.1,000.00. As such, Papammal became the absolute owner of the entire suit property leaving behind her only son Kannan to succeed the suit property. According to the plaintiff, on 18/1/2006, the said Kannan entered into a sale agreement with one Manohar Reddy for selling the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 and received a sum of Rs.1,80,000.00as advance and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within 20 months and execute sale deed in favour of the purchaser. As the plaintiff was having a house on the southern side of the suit property and residing there, it is more convenient and essential for him to annex with the suit property for beneficial enjoyment. As such, the plaintiff got the sale agreement assigned from Manohar Reddy in his favour on 22/12/2006 for valid consideration.