Lower right extinguished after death of husband.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. The property measuring 1.13 acres comprised in S. No. 229/3 and situate in the village of Senthurai, is the suit property. The 1st defendant is the wife of the 4th defendant. Defendants 2,3,8 and 9 are the children of the defendants 1 and 4 the 7th defendant is the 1st wife of the 4th defendant. Defendants 5 and 6 are the children of the 7th defendant born of the 4th defendant. The suit property belonged to the 4th defendant, who on 16. 1975, after receiving a consideration of Rs. 3,600 executed a sale in favour of the plaintiff. The sale was executed by the 4th defendant himself and as guardian of his minor children, defendants 8 and 9. As per the recitals in the sale deed, the promissory note executed by the 4th defendant on 6. 1974 was discharged. The plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser of the property for value. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S. No. 344 of 1975 for payment of maintenance and obtained a decree collusively. In execution of the said decree, the suit property was brought up for sale. The defendants 1 to 3 are disputing the right and title of the plaintiff to the suit property. All the defendants are residing in the same house in the village of Kattuthular. The plaintiff is not a party to the maintenance suit. Hence, the decree is not binding upon him. Since the title of the plaintiff to the suit property is denied, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, restraining the defendants from bringing the properties to auction.

3. The written statement filed by defendants 1 to 3 was adopted by defendants 8 and 9, where they contended as follows:

The suit is not maintainable. The sale deed dated 16. 1975 is not true. It is not valid and it is not supported by consideration. It will not bind the defendants. There was no necessity for the 4th defendant to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The said debt will not bind defendants 1 to 3. The sale deed did not come into force. The allegation that a decree has been obtained in O.S. No. 344 of 1975 collusively, by the defendants, is false. It is also not true to allege that the defendants are all residing in the same house in the village Kattuthular. The plaintiff is not entitled to either declaration or injunction. Proper court fee is not paid. The plaintiff bound to pray for cancellation of the decree. The defendants 1 to 3 were driven out of the house by the 4th defendant. Therefore, the defendants by notice dated 4. 1975 demanded the 4th defendant to pay maintenance to them. Later, they followed it up with a suit. The decree passed in O.S. No. 344 of 1975 was confirmed in A.S. No. 294 of 1977. Since no amount was paid towards the decree, an application in E.P. No. 45 of 1977 was filed. Again E.P. No. 709 of 1980 was filed to realise the decree amount. With a view to defeat and delay, the suit has been filed. The defendants 8 and 9 with reference to their 2/3rd share in the property, filed a suit in O.S. No. 26 of 1976, which is pending. Therefore, the defendants pray that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

.4. The 7th defendant filed a written statement, which has been adopted by the defendants 5 and 6, which runs as follows:

.The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the allegation that he is the purchaser of the property for valuable consideration. The defendants never attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. The defendants therefore pray that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

5. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The 1st defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Exs. B.1 to B 7 were marked.

6. The learned District Munsif, Ariyalur, by his judgment dated 7. 1985 dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said decision, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Sub- court, Ariyalur, in A.S. No. 155 of 1985. By its judgme