DURAI ALIAS SUBRAYAN Vs. ANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant before this court. The suit was filed by the respondent, who is the plaintiff, praying for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing upon the schedule mentioned property.

(2.) IT is contended by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Athilakshmi Ammal. She sold the suit property in favour of one Radhakrishnan by virtue of sale deed dated 27. 8. 1977. Radhakrishnan executed a Will dated 28. 9. 1983 in favour of his son Arumugam born through his first wife and thereafter, he died in the year 1984. The mother of the said Arumugam also died leaving him behind her as her only legal representative. The plaintiff purchased the schedule mentioned property by virtue of sale deed dated 3. 2. 1993. Alleging that the defendant is making an attempt to trespass upon the suit property using force, the plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) IN the written statement, the defendant has contended that the legal heirs of Radhakrishnan viz. , his first wife Poorani, Arumugam the son born through his first wife and Gunabushni, the daughter born through his first wife entered into a contract of sale with the defendant on 27. 7. 1990 in respect of the suit property. Full consideration of Rs. 30,000/= was already paid. The vendors also handed over possession of the suit properties to the defendant after receiving full consideration on 27. 7. 1990. Formal sale deed was agreed to be executed in favour of the defendant by the vendors. The plaintiff is not the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration inasmuch as the defendant has been in possession of the suit property eversince the date of contract of sale entered into between the parties. The plaintiff, taking advantage of the interim injunction granted in the suit, took possession of the suit property. The vendors evaded to execute the deed of conveyance demanding additional sum of Rs. 10,000/=. At any rate, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to an order of injunction as prayed for in the suit, it is contended.