JUDGMENT:-The first defendant in Q. S. No. 862 of 1968 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs, Nachimuthu Gounder and Palaniswami Gounder, are brothers. They have another brother by name Chinnaswamy Gounder, who is the second defendant in the suit. The first defendant is the son of one of the sisters of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. The father of the plaintiffs and the second defendant and the maternal grandfather of the first defendant is one Ramaswamy Gounder. The A schedule properties to the plaint are 3 items conveyed under Exhibits A-2 to A-4 dated 28th March, 1949, 28th August, 1950 and 21st September, 1950 in the name of the said Ramaswamy Gounder. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that though the sale deed Exhibits A-2 to A-4 were taken in the name of the said Ramaswamy Gounder, he did not pay the purchase price for the sale transaction out of his own funds, but that the purchase price came out of the income from B schedule property owned by the plaintiffs and the second defendant. According to the plaintiffs the A schedule properties were the separate properties of theirs and the second defendant. On 17th October, 1968 the said Ramaswamy Gounder was said to have been taken to the house of Peria Nachammal, their sister, by the first defendant and on the next day viz., 18th October, 1968 the first defendant got executed by the said Ramaswamy Gounder and registered a conveyance for a sum of Rs. 10,000 of the A schedule properties which were worth much more. The plaintiffs’ case was that no consideration passed for the sale deed, that it was a sham and nominal document and that at the time of the execution of the said conveyance, their father who was aged about 90 years, was not in sound health and was an enfeebled man not capable of exercising his free volition. They claimed to have presented their objection petition before the Sub-Registrar, Palladom, who, it is said, registered the document in spite of their objection. They claimed that the first defendant was: in possession and enjoyment of the A schedule properties, that they obtained an order of temporary injunction and that after the disposal of the appeal against the said order in the District Court which negatived the grant of the temporary injunction the first defendant trespassed into the A schedule properties and took forcible possession thereof. So they came forward with a suit for a declaration of their title and that of the second defendant to the A schedule properties and for a consequential permanent: injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with their possession. They subsequently amended the plaint and asked for delivery of possession of the A schedule properties after they got an adverse order in the District Court against the interim order granting temporary injunction. It was alleged that the sale deed had been brought about fraudulently when Ramaswamy Gounder was unable to realise what he was doing. Particulars of the fraudulent conduct were specified in paragraph 8 of the plaint. There was an alternative plea that even assuming that the A schedule properties were family properties, the said Ramaswamy Gounder was entitled to only ¼th share therein and that, therefore, the first defendant was not entitled’ to possession of the A schedule properties.

2. The first defendant contended that the A schedule properties were purchased exclusively by Ramaswamy Gounder out of his business in cotton and that they were his exclusive properties. According to the first defendant, the income from B schedule properties was not utilised for the purchase of the A schedule properties and that Ramaswamy Gounder was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the A schedule properties on his own and Ramaswamy Gounder was competent to alienate the A schedule-properties. He denied taking Ramaswamy Gounder to his place. The further defence was that Ramaswamy Gounder being the manager of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document