Ratnavel Pandian, J.-This appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 43 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. The said suit was filed by him for declaration of his title to and possession of the plaint schedule property and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession, and if the defendant managed to get possession by force and was found to be in possession for directing him to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff with mesne profits after giving declaration of title, and for costs.

2. The plaint allegations were as follows: The plaint schedule property is a portion of S. No. 1398/65-A in Kaliel Village, the total extent of which is 250 acres. The said 250 acres belonged to one Mr. Mohamed Mustaffa, son of Masthan Rowther. He executed an agreement of sale dated 16th September, 1957 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said 250 acres, for a total consideration of Rs. 62,500 and the plaintiff also paid an advance of Rs.1,801 to Mustaffa. From the time of the said agreement, the plaintiff was requesting Mustaffa to give the property on sale for a total consideration of Rs. 50,000 which request Mustaffa also promised to consider, and it was under the said circumstances the consideration was recited as Rs. 62,500 in the agreement. The defendant was an intimate friend of the plaintiff and he was also a lessee of Mustaffa. While, so, upto 25th September, l958 the plaintiff had paid to Mustaffa total sum of Rs. 27,876. Sometimes, the plaintiff had sent amounts to Mustaffa through the defendant. By that time, Mustaffa also was pleased to reduce the sale amount to Rs. 50,000. Because of the confidence in Mustaffa, the plaintiff also did not get any receipts, excepting a few receipts obtained in the name of the defendant and those receipts are with the defendant. The plaintiff is a Government servant and he retired on 7th December, 1967 So, he requested Mustaffa to execute a sale deed ostensibly in the name of the defendant. So, on 29th September, 1958 Mustaffa executed a sale deed in the name of the defendant. On the date of sale, the plaintiff made three separate payments of Rs. 1,600, Rs.2,000 and Rs. 524. After the date of sale, the plaintiff has also paid to Mustaffa various sums, totalling Rs. 18,000. While so, in October, l958,when the plaintiff met Mustaffa, he wanted to verify the account regarding the amounts paid till then. On reconciliation, it was found that a sum of Rs.524 had not been credited by Mustaffa. Mustaffa promised to rectify the accounts. Even regarding the payments made after 29th September, 1958, the plaintiff had paid some amounts through the defendant. Even after the agreement of sale, the plaintiff had begun, negotiations with various persons to sell various portions of the property. Even on the date of sale executed by Mustaffa, the plaintiff made the defendant execute a sale in favour of one Joseph Muthian with regard to an extent of 9, acres. On the same day, the plaintiff caused a formal sale to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff himself in respect of 25 acres. In the said 25 acres, the plaintiff had already planted in June, 1958 rubber, with the knowledge and consent of Mustaffa. The said 25 acres were taken in order to enable him to make an application for licence. Apart from the two sale deeds abovementioned, the plaintiff caused the defendant to execute five more sale deeds in that year. In the year 1959, the plaintiff brought about altogether ten sale deeds and according to the directions of the plaintiff, the defendant executed those sale deeds. In 1960, as per the plaintiff’s directions, the defendant executed three more sale deeds. An extent of 45 acres 20 cents, described in the plaint schedule, stands ostensibly in the name of the defendant. Because of confidence, the plaintiff did not take care to have the sale deed dated 2gth September, l958 obtained from Mustaffa an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document