MRS. BHAWARI BAI Vs. B.C. SUDHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is filed to cancel the Decree dated 16.09.2008 made in O.S.No.5992 of 2007, on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as the same was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and collusion; for declaration declaring the Sale Deed dated 27.02.2012, registered as Document No.179 of 2012 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai, executed by the first defendant in favour of the 7th defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property;

(2.) Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:- The plaintiff has purchased the suit property bearing Door No.27, Wall Tax Road, Chennai-79, comprised in R.S.No.123/9 measuring an extent of 1440 sq. ft. land and building by a Sale Deed dated 13.03.2001 registered as Document No.330 of 2001 on the file of Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai, from the first defendant. From the date of purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owner thereof. When the matter stood thus, the first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.439 of 2006 on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, against the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The said suit was rejected on 15.03.2007.

(3.) The defendants remain ex parte. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. P.W.1 in her evidence has stated about the purchase of the property from the first defendant in the year 2001 and thereafter, the first defendant and one Sarojini filed a suit and obtained ex parte decree without serving summons on the plaintiff and thereafter the first defendant sold the property to the 7th defendant herein which is not valid in law. The plaintiff has also stated in her evidence that the suit property in no way connected to the partition entered between the parties. The first defendant having sold the property to the plaintiff in the year 2001, the second sale in favour of the 7th defendant in the year 2012 is null and void. The evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged.