V ARUMUGAM Vs. R CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2005, made in A.S.No.2 of 2004, on the file of the Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.03.2004, made in O.S.No.294 of 1997, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs, as culled out from the plaint for the purpose of disposal of the Second Appeal, is as follows:-

(3.) A Written Statement was filed by the first defendant contending that the plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. The first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. He sold the said property to the defendants 2 and 3, on 05.05.1997, by way of a registered sale deed. Thus, according to the defendants, there was no agreement for sale as alleged in the plaint. It has been further averred in the Written Statement that the first defendant entered into an oral agreement, on 06.03.1991, in the presence of one Padmanaban and Mahalingam while attending/assisting "Manai Muhoortham Ceremony" at ' Arulanantha Nagar is false. Likewise, the allegation that the defendant took the plaintiff and the witnesses to the suit village and identified the suit property and handed over the possession are all false. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property either on the date of the filing of the suit or earlier or subsequent to the filing of the suit. The plaintiff being the elder brother was keeping the family documents and paying kists and other payments by collecting the same from the defendants and the other brothers. Taking advantage of the said fact, the plaintiff is now using the same against the defendants. The first defendant derived title to the suit property through registered settlement deed, dated 15.12.1974 and ever since then, he was in possession of the suit property. After the plaintiff refused, the first defendant procured loan in Mercantile Bank by crediting charge in the property. The defendants 2 and 3 entered into sale agreement prior to the notice and caveat of the plaintiff and that is why, notice and caveat were sent by the plaintiff to all the defendants. Based on the agreement, possession was given on the same date to the defendants 2 and 3 and the registration of sale was also effected on 05.05.1997.