MOHIDEEN FATHIMA Vs. MOUNASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.6 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.47 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai, the plaintiff has filed the above Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2005 for declaration and permanent injunction. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows: According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Sadagopal Naidu. Subsequently on 29.08.1960, one Mounasamy Nadar purchased the property from Sadagopal Naidu. After the death of Mounasamy Nadar, his legal heirs viz., the defendants 1 to 3 sold the property to the plaintiff on 12.09.1988. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Mounasamy Nadar and the defendants 4 to 7 are his daughters. The first defendant executed a sale deed dated 12.09.1988 as guardian of the defendants 2 and 3. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant had died as a bachelor. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 are his legal representatives. The sisters of the defendants 1 to 3 were impleaded as defendants 4 to 7. Since the defendants claimed share in the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) The brief case of the defendants 2 and 3 is as follows: According to the defendants, the second defendant is not mentally sound. He was under the care of his mother. He was a major on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 12.09.1988. It has been fraudulently mentioned as minor in the sale deed. Mounasamy Nadar died on 04.02.1971 leaving behind his wife and the defendants 1 to 7 as his legal heirs. The third defendant was born on 04.05.1971. The suit property was purchased by Mounasamy Nadar. Hence, his legal heirs are entitled to equal share. The sale deed was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, who defrauded the other defendants. The sale deed executed by the first defendant will only bind his share in the suit property. In these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.