K. KUPPAN Vs. PANDURANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant in O.S. No. 483 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar is the appellant herein. The respondent in this second appeal is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant herein from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit property. By decree and judgement dated 28.04.2004, the trial Court partly allowed the suit thereby declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit property and dismissed the suit in respect of the decree for permanent injunction. As against the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. By decree and judgement dated 30.04.2008, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the decree and judgement of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the third defendant is before this Court with this second appeal.

(2.) ON service of notice, the respondent has entered appearance though his learned counsel. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff and I have also perused the records carefully. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: - -

(3.) THE defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the trial Court. The third defendant filed a written statement wherein, he disputed the title of the plaintiff. According to him, he has been enjoying the suit property for about 10 years. The first defendant was the absolute owner of the total extent of both the Items of the suit properties. The third defendant had entered into an unregistered sale agreement on 22.02.1991 (Ex. B.1) with the first defendant by which, the first defendant had agreed to sell the suit properties to the third defendant for a total consideration of Rs. 7,500/ -. A sum of Rs. 500/ - was paid towards part payment of the sale consideration. Subsequently, on 03.05.1991, a further sum of Rs. 6,700/ - was paid towards further sale consideration. As per sale agreement dated 22.02.1991 (Ex. B.1), the first defendant made an endorsement under Ex. B.2 dated 03.05.1991. Thereafter, the first defendant duly executed the sale deed dated 02.03.1994, thereby selling the entire extent of both the items of properties to the third defendant. The said document is Ex. B.3. But, it was presented for registration only on 23.06.1994 and accordingly, it was registered. According to the third defendant, since, the sale deed executed by the first defendant under Ex. B.2 had conveyed title on 02.03.1994 itself in favour of the third defendant, the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 and 2 on 09.03.1994 in favour of the plaintiff being a subsequent document would not have conveyed any title to the plaintiff. Thus, according to the third defendant, the plaintiff has got no title for the suit properties. It is his further case that the plaintiff is also not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.