N. PARAMESHWARI Vs. D. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants who lost before the Courts below are the appellants herein.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, briefly narrated, are as follows :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants / defendants would contend that under Ex.A1-Sale Deed dated 24.02.2012, their father [late] Palanisamy said to have conveyed 77 cents of land with half share in the well and invited the attention of this Court to Ex.A5-Agreement of Sale and would submit that once again, 77 cents of land in the very same survey number sought to be conveyed. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that if really Ex.A1 came into being, then in one of the boundaries, it should have been shown that the land belongs to the plaintiff and admittedly, the very same boundaries have been shown and therefore, the case projected by the appellants / defendants is wholly sustainable. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even as per Ex.A1, their father [late] Palanisamy acquired 40 cents of land by way of Self Acquisition under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.08.1961 [Ex.A6], he got 1.34 cents of land he has no right to convey the properties which came to be by way of partition as the defendants are having share as co-parcerners and on that ground also, the decree granted by the Lower Appellate Court is liable to set aside.