RAJ MOHAN Vs. SRINIVASA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in the suit has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated 30.04.1990 made in O.S.No.154 of 1988.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs as put before the Trial Court is, as under:

(3.) THE second plaintiff, in the reply statement has denied the contentions raised in the additional Written Statement as not sustainable. According to him, the provisions of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act will not be applicable to the facts of this case. He stated that Rukmani Ammal is a member of the family of Rangamannar Chettiar and his wife and the plaintiffs cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. It was his contention that the settlement obtained by the second defendant from Perundevi is an invalid and illegal document as it was obtained at a time when Perundevi was mentally impecile and not in a sound disposing state of mind. He submitted that the settlement deed is vitiated on account of the grounds mentioned in the plaint and the second defendant cannot claim any title to the property and it is the plaintiffs who are entitled to succeed Perundevi Ammal as legal heirs.