N DAYALAN Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, in a suit for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction, have filed the above Second Appeal, aggrieved by the fact that the relief of declaration has not been granted, though the relief of injunction was granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) It is case of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff's father-Nathappa Reddiar entered into an Agreement of Sale with the original owner of the property, namely, Thayammal and Kannappa Mudaliar with respect to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the sons of the first plaintiff. It is stated that though an advance was originally paid, subsequently, the entire sale consideration was paid to the vendors. The said agreement Ex.A-1 is dated 21.06.1965. It is also stated that the possession was handed over to the said Nathappa Reddiar on the date of execution of Ex.A-1 itself. While so, the respondents 1 to 4, who are the strangers to the suit property, applied for patta claiming to be the legal heirs of the vendor of the first plaintiff's father and attempted to sell the suit property. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) The respondents/defendants denied the execution of Ex-A1 Agreement and that it is not true and valid. It is stated that the patta granted in favour of Nathappa Reddiar was cancelled and the same was granted in the name of the respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right or title over the suit property.