PANDURANGAN Vs. SARANGAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 69 of 1970 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. He filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant and subsequently the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant are null and void. The suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiffs ancestors. The plaintiffs father got them under a Petition dated 31.3.1922, marked as Ex. A -1'. The plaintiffs father, who is not a party to the suit, executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 6.1.1969, marked as Ex. A -12. The first defendant is none other than the brother -in -law of the plaintiff. In other words the first defendant has married the plaintiffs sister. The sale deed was thus executed by the plaintiffs father in favour of his son -in -law. 'The first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that his father was a person of unsound mind and that the sale deed in favour of the first defendant having been executed when he was a person of unsound mind conveyed no title to the first defendant and that the first defendant in turn cannot sell the properties in favour of the Second defendant.

(2.) THE defendants took up the stand that the plaintiff had no locus standi to question the alienation, that his father was the absolute owner of the properties and that he could deal with it in the best manner possible. They disputed that the plaintiffs father was of unsound mind and therefore incapable of executing the document in favour of the first defendant.

(3.) THE second defendant filed an appeal, which was disposed of by the First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. He held that it was not proved that the plaintiffs father was of unsound mind at the time of execution of Ex. A -12, that the plaintiff had no right to question the validity of the sale deed for want of consideration as the vendor alone could do so and that the plea of nullity of the sale deed was not maintainable. It is against this judgment and the decree following it, the present second appeal has been filed.