A JEYAPANDI; A CHELLATHURAI Vs. GNANAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.03.1993, made in A.S. No. 172 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.1989, made in O.S. No. 394 of 1984 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) It is not in dispute that Ex.B3 is the certificate copy of the sale deed, relating to the suit property and Poochangara Nadar, father of the respondent/ plaintiff had purchased the property under the original of Ex.B3, dated 18.07.1960. The original mortgage deed, dated 16.06.1962, under which the property was mortgaged by Poochangara Nadar in favour of one Sundaram Nadar was marked as Ex.B4. As per Ex.B5, dated 21.05.1973, the first defendant Rajammal, executed the sale deed in dispute in favour of Arumuga Nadar, father of the appellants 1 & 2. After the death of Poochangara Nadar, while the respondent/plaintiff, his daughter, was a minor, the first defendant his wife, executed the sale deed Ex.B5 in favour of the father of the appellants. It has been admitted by both sides that Poochangara Nadar died leaving first defendant, Rajammal and the respondent / plaintiff his minor daughter as his legal hairs and that the first respondent / plaintiff was a minor, while the first defendant executed the sale deed, Ex.B5 in favour of Arumuga Nadar, father of the appellants. In such circumstances, as a rightly held by the courts below, the first respondent / plaintiff cannot seek declaration of title and recovery of possession for the entire property, as she was only one of the two legal heirs of Poochangara Nadar.