K.S. KALIAPPAN Vs. N. DHARMALINGAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful third defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 herein, who had purchased the properties from the sixth respondent herein, who was the second defendant in the suit, are the absolute owners of the suit properties by way of a sale deed dated 31.03.2001. The first defendant is the husband of the second defendant and the third defendant is the son of the defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, the second defendant/appellant, who has got right and title over the suit property had conveyed the same to the plaintiffs 1 to 4/respondents 1 to 4. Earlier, the third defendant/appellant attempted to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the second defendant in the suit property, which resulted in filing of O.S. No. 181 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam. The said suit was decreed in favour of the second defendant herein. The plaintiffs 1 to 4/respondents 1 to 4 have been in possession of the properties from the date of purchase and mutation of revenue records also effected in the name of the plaintiffs. The third defendant/appellant lodged a police complaint, contending that he had entered into an agreement with Sakthi Sugar Mills and there are sugarcane crops standing in the suit property. However, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the said loan was availed by the second defendant who had entered into an agreement with them. On repayment of the said loan, she had, infact, sent a letter to cancel the agreement and the same was also acknowledged by the said Sakthi Sugar Mills. In view of attempts by the appellant herein, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

(3.) THE third defendant/appellant had filed his written statement, contending that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs dated 31.03.2001 is not supported by any valid consideration. Due to the misunderstanding between the appellant and the defendants 1 and 2, a portion of the suit property in Survey No. 97/13 was sold to one Vedhanayagam, who, in turn, had sold to Ayyappan and Balasubramaniam and since then, the said persons were in enjoyment and possession of the suit properties. The appellant herein was lessee in the said properties and also had given up leasehold rights on receipt of Rs. 25,000/ -. The first defendant had purchased the suit properties in the name of the second defendant, who is his wife, out of the joint family income. The appellant also had admitted the partition of the properties orally as early as in the year 1980 and later, the same had been reduced to writing in the year 1985. According to him, despite the partition, the agricultural activities were carried out in the said properties by the appellant who had obtained loan from the Sugar Mills and Agricultural Co -operative Society by mortgaging the suit properties.