ROHILANT EBENS Vs. RUKKUMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the Judgement and Decree dated 25.04.2014 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruppattur, reversing the Judgement and decree dated 18.09.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruppattur, Vellore District in O.S.No.83 of 2007.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is as follows:-

(3.) According to the defendants, the suit properties to an extent of 7.86 acres in Survey No.85 Kottur Village, Elagiri Hills including house, Well situated therein was purchased by one Rama Gounder @ Cart Raman through sale certificate dated 08.11.1940. Rama Gounder had two sons namely, Elavi Gounder and Krishnan. Krishnan had a son by name Govindan. In the year 1965, Krishnan and Govindan executed a sale deed in favour of four different persons who are residing at Chennai and Kolkatta. Though the sales were effected in 1965, Krishnan and Govindan and the defendants constrained to reside in the suit properties without any interruption. Though the alleged sales are of the year,1965, none of the persons who claims to have purchased the property took possession nor enjoyed the property. The plaintiff has purchased the land only on 19.02.2007 through power of attorney after being fully aware of the fact that the suit properties are in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. The plaintiff has already purchased other properties from the defendants and he is aware of the possession of the suit properties by the defendants. The plaintiff being a speculative purchaser, taking advantage of the entries in the joint chitta and adangal of the alleged purchasers in the year 1965 along with the defendants, has obtained alleged power of attorney from the said persons in Chennai and Kolkotta and has entered into Sham and nominal documents on 09.12.2007 in order to defeat the right of the defendants. The plaintiff as a speculative purchaser, mortgaged the sale deed dated 09.02.2007 and also the earlier sale deeds of the year 1965 and has come up with the suit. Now, the defendants 1 to 7 have sold the property to the 8th defendant through sale deed dated 204.2008 and later a rectification deed was also executed. Hence, the suit is sought to be dismissed.