ORDER

1. The third defendant in a suit for declaration of title and possession and for consequential permanent injunction is the appellant in this appeal by special leave. A suit was filed by the first respondent herein of whom Respondents 2 to 11 are the LRs. Respondent 12 herein was the second defendant in the suit. For convenience, we will refer to the parties by their rank in the suit.

2. The first defendant (Karunakaran Nadar) claimed that an extent of 14 c cents in Survey No. 1817 was allotted to him at a partition. He sold the said 14 cents in Survey No. 1817, hereinafter referred to as "the suit property", in favour of the second defendant (Solomon Nadar) under a registered sale deed dated 1-8-1946. The second defendant executed a deed of possessory mortgage dated 16-1-1947 in favour of one Syeed Kannu. According to the plaintiff, as the said mortgage was not redeemed, Syeed Kannu became the absolute owner and on his death the suit land was inherited by his son Mohammed Ali. The said Mohammed Ali sold the property to the plaintiff (Sundaram Nadar) under a registered sale deed dated 23-12-1978. The plaintiff, thus, claims to be the owner of the suit property in possession thereof. According to him, as the defendants were admitting to interfere with his possession and challenge his title, he found it fit to file OS No. 110 of c 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Kozhithurai for declaration that he is the son and is in possession of the suit property and for consequential injunction.

3. The third defendant (the appellant herein) on the other hand contends that the sale by Karunakaran, the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 1-8-1946 was sham and nominal. That the first defendant sold I 10 cents out of Survey No. 1817 in favour of one Dasan Nadar under registered sale deed dated 22-5-1953. That Karunakaran had also mortgaged the very same 14 cents in favour of one Muhammed Haneefa on 16-2-1953 before the sale in favour of Dasan Nadar and the said Muhammed Haneefa had signed mortgage in favour of the second defendant Solomon Nadar. The second defendant had executed a release deed in favour of Dasan Nadar in I regard to 10 cents purchased by him under a deed of release dated 1-8-1966 and this Dasan Nadar became absolute owner of 10 cents.

4. It is also claimed that Dasan Nadar had also purchased 2 cents in Survey No. 1817 under sale deed dated 1-8-1966 executed by Kanmakaran and his wife Ammukutty and thus became the owner of 12 cents of land. It is alleged that the 2 cents of land comprised of residential house where Karunakaran and Ammukutty were staying and Dasan filed an eviction suit against them and obtained possession of the house situated on the 2 cents of land under decree dated 21-9-1974. The third defendant claims that Dasan Nadar thus became the owner in possession of 12 cents of land and executed a deed of sale dated 22-8-1977 in favour of the third defendant and thus the third defendant became the absolute owner in possession of 12 cents of land.

5. The third defendant contended that the sale deed dated 1-8-1946 in favour of Solomon Nadar was void and as a consequence the mortgage by Solomon Nadar in favour of Syeed Kannu and sale by Syeed Kannu, son in favour of Sundaram Nadar was invalid. The trial court upheld the contention of the plaintiff. It held that once Karunakaran had sold the 14 cents of land in favour of Solomon Nadar under sale deed dated 1-8-1946, he had no saleable or other interest in the suit property and consequentially the mortgage dated 16-2-1953 in favour of Muhammed Haneefa, sale dated 22-5-1953 in favour of Dasan Nadar as also another sale deed dated 9-7-1955 in favour of Gopalakrishna Pillai were all inconsequential and ineffective. The trial court, therefore, granted a decree as prayed for.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the third defendant filed an appeal. The first appellate court accepted the contention of the third defendant that the sale deed dated 1-8-1946 was sham and n