SUSILA BAI Vs. SUJA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is represented by a counsel. The respondent has also entered appearance through counsel. The submissions made by Mr. R. Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. John Jeyakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent have been heard and the judgments of the courts below have been perused.

(2.) THE admitted case of both parties is that the total extent of 6 2/3 cents comprised in Resurvey No. 204/1 in Thiruvattar Village along with the buildings standing thereon originally belonged to one Thomas Nadar who happened to be the father-in-law of the plaintiff and defendant who are the respondent and appellant respectively in the Second Appeal. It is also not in dispute that out of the total extent of 6 2/3cents (6. 7 cents) an extent of 5 1/3 cents on the western part was purchased from the said Thomas Nadar by the appellant herein/defendant under a registered Sale deed dated 15. 12. 1987. It is also not in dispute that a portion of the building which came within the above said extent sold to the defendant was also a subject matter of the sale. The said sale deed is marked as Ex. B2. Subsequently on 5. 1. 1998 the said Thomas Nadar executed a Sale Deed marked as Ex. A1 in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff conveying the remaining portion of the above said property along with the building portion. However, while executing the sale deed the extent was given as 1. 5 cents instead of 1 1/3 cents. The appellant/defendant also obtained a sale deed from the very same Thomas Nadar in respect of the above said eastern portion on 4. 12. 1998.

(3.) THE Courts below have rightly held that the said second sale deed in favour of the appellant/defendant dated 4. 12. 1998, which has been marked as Ex. B11, was of no effect since the vendor did not have any conveyable title after execution of the sale deed under Ex. A1 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The suit had been filed for the relief of demarcation of the western boundary of the respondent/plaintiff's property, for the declaration of title and for consequential injunction. The trial court allowed the suit and granted all the above said reliefs by judgment and decree dated 12. 12. 2003. On appeal in A. S. No. 10 of 2004 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil (Camp at Padmanabhapuram) the said decree of the trial court was confirmed. Hence the appellant/defendant is before this Court with the present Second Appeal.