F LAWRENCE Vs. AROKIADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27. 09. 2000 passed in A. S. No. 77/2000 by the VII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and Decree of the II Asst. Judge, City Civil Court , Chenna i dated 25. 01. 2000 in O. S. No. 4142/1995.) This second appeal arises out of the concurrent Judgment and Decree passed in A. S. No. 77/2000 by the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court , chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court , Chennai in O. S. No. 4142/1995, dated 25. 01. 2000, decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for declaration and the recovery of possession. Unsuccessful sixth Defendant is the appellant. For convenience, the parties are referred in their original rank in the suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF and the Defendants are related as under:- Velangann i Amma l (died on 29. 11. 1985) | | ------------------------------------------ | | | | Upakar a Mariamma l D-1 Theresa = Francis D-2 = Velankann i | | | | | Arokiada s (PLAINTIFF) | | -------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | Godwin Joseph Avin Joseph Mavin Joseph Lawrence | (D-3) (D-4) (D-5) (D-6) | | | Sagaya Mary (D-7) The suit property relates to Premises No. 10, Bentlemen Street, Kasimedu , Thondiarpet , bearing O. S. 2805 New Survey No. 3475, subdivision No. 24.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, seven issues were framed in the trial court. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court found that the landlords have executed Ex. A-2 Sale Deed to Velanganni Ammal and the landlords have no right to execute the sale deed to the first Defendant - Upakara Mariammal. Pointing out the earlier application filed by d-1 in I. A. No. 1714/1976, seeking to implead her self and the dismissal of that application, the learned Assistant Judge has pointed out that D-1 Upakara Mariammal has no right or interest in the suit property. It was further held that on the basis of Ex. B-1, case of D-6 that the first Defendant paid the instalment amount to the landlords cannot be accepted. Pointing out that Velanganni Ammal herself had earlier sent Ex. A-4 notice, the Defendants'contention that Velanganni Ammal consented to ex. B-1 Sale Deed was negatived by the trial court. Pointing out the non-examination of the vendors to prove Ex. B-1 lower court disbelieved the defence. As against the decreeing of the suit, D-6 has preferred the appeal in A. S. No. 77/2000. First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment of the trial court. Pointing out that after the dismissal of the application in I. A. No. 1714/1976, D-1 had not taken any further steps, the appellate Court held that Ex. B-1 - Sale Deed had been created to bolster the case of the Defendants. Holding that Velanganni Ammal had executed ex. A-4-Will out of her free-will and volition, bequeathing the suit property to the Plaintiff, the Judgment and Decree of the trial court was confirmed. The appellate Court has also concurred with the findings of the Court below that ex. B-1 was not been properly proved either by examining the vendors or by adducing evidence showing that D-1 had paid the instalment amount for purchase of the suit premises.