MARY ALIAS MARIAMMAL Vs. VENKATACHALA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the plaintiff who failed in the appeal before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.104 of 1991.

(2.) THE appellant filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession in the suit property from the respondents. THE respondents resisted the suit on various grounds. THE learned District Munsif, Vridhachalam, having analysed the evidence adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments advanced by both counsel, decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif having analysed the evidence on record held on the above issues that the sale deed dated 30.7.1953 executed in favour of the plaintiff's father Michael is true, valid and binding, that the sale deeds dated 4.5.1972, 12.3.1978 executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 are not true, valid and binding; that the settlement deed dated 31.7.1950 is also not true and valid;that the first defendant has not acquired any right or title to the suit properties, that the suit is not barred for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the suit is also not barred by res judicata and that therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for.