SINNAMMAL Vs. DURAIRAJ(DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property succeeded before the trial Court, but lost in the appeal preferred by the respondents herein/defendant. Hence, the second appeal is directed against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court.

(2.) The factual background of the dispute is as below:-

(3.) Whereas, the case of the defendants is that the suit property was never in possession or enjoyment of the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 18.06.1965-Ex.A1 executed in favour of Vaithayalingam is a sham and nominal document. No title or possession has been passed to Vaithayalingam or his father, who represented his minor son. The first defendant has put up construction in the suit property and has been residing in it. The first defendant created a sham document in the name of Vaithayalingam represented by his father and Guardian Chellamuthu on 18.06.1965 to bring back his estraged wife who threatened him to file suit for maintenance.