SINGARAVELU MUDALIAR Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 25 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court , Kangeyam are the appellants.

(2.) THE sole respondent herein filed the above suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants interfering with her possession on the following allegations. THE suit property in the plaint originally belonged to one Venkatammal. About 30 years plaintiff purchased the property on the basis of an oral sale and came into possession.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment, the plaintiff preferred a. S. No. 64 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram. The lower appellate court also found that the suit without a declaratory relief is defective. But at the same time, came to the conclusion mat the plaintiff is entitled to injunction. It found that the oral sale must be true taking into consideration the various exhibits produced before it. It further came to the conclusion mat if the plaintiff is found to be in possession, she is entitled to injunction even against the owner. Setting aside the judgment of the trial court, a decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff. It is against this judgment, the defendants preferred this appeal. The following substantial questions of law were raised at the time of admission: '(1) Whether the lower appellate court is right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in view of the decision reported in James v. Y. Davidson, (1988)1 L. W. 590" (2) Whether the oral sale put forth by the plaintiff is acceptable in law in view of Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act"'