Sale executed in favour of plaintiff held invalid.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

The defendants are the appellants. There are two appeals arising out of two suits. The plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1985 (A.S.No.161 of 1991) is the wife of the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 1985 (A.S No.162 of 1991). They are the first respondent in each of the appeals. The facts are almost identical. The averments in the plaint are as follows:

The suit property belonged to one Mehaboob Hunnissa, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same till 111. 1972. She had five sons and one daughter. The defendants 1 to 8 were the legal heirs of her son Abdullah Khan. (They are the appellants 1 to 8 and the LRs of the deceased appellant 1 and 6/defendants 1 and 6 have been brought on record). The defendants 9 to 13 and 2 other daughters were the legal heirs of another son Saukhatali Khan. (The appellants 9 to 12 are defendants 9 to 12 and the 13th defendant is the third respondent since she has not chosen to join in the appeal, she has been shown as a respondent). Another son Jaffar Khan died married and issueless prior to 1972. Mehaboob Hunnissa divided the said property into five shares on 111. 1972. At that time, another son Gaffar Khan had also expired. So Mehaboob Hunnissa divided her property into five shares. She allotted two shares to Abdullah Khan directing him to look after the heirs of Gaffar Khan also; one share to Basheed Khan; one share to Fathima Kathoon her daughter; and one share to Shaukatali Khan. All were parties to and jointly executed Exhibit B-1. Since that date they have been in enjoyment and absolute possession of their shares. The property subject matter of No. 34 of 1985 was allotted to Bashed Khan. The property subject matter of O.S. No.34 of 1985 was allotted to Fathima Kathoon. According to the plaintiff, Basheed Khan and Fathima Kathoon rented out to Abdullah Khan their properties on a rental income of Rs.100/-, which he paid until his death. Since the defendants who are his legal representatives failed to pay the rent they made repeated demands. Since there were no document to evidence the tenancy they have started denying the tenancy itself. Since they were separate door numbers for the five portions, tax receipts were issued in the name of Mehaboob Hunnissa. This was also taken advantage of by the defendants. When Basheed Khan and Fathima Kathoon made an attempt to sell the property to the defendants 1 to 8, they were offered a very low and inadequate price. Thereafter, Basheed Khan sold his share to the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1985 and Fathima Kathoon sold her share to the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 1985 and the purchasers were given possession of the property. The defendants denied the plaintiffs title and refused to pay the rent. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title and for possession.

2. The written statement of the defendants is identical in both the suits. According to them, the plaintiff has purchased litigation. It was admitted that the property belonged to Mehaboob Hunnissa. But the husband of Fathima Kathoon procured the settlement deed from her by which the entire property was ostensibly conveyed to Fathima Kathoon. But no possession was given. Mehaboob Hunnissa came to know of this fraud later and revoked the settlement deed on 11. 1972 by Exhibit B-2 and entered into an arrangement Exhibit B-1 dated 111. 1972. According to the defendants, Fathima Kathoon had received a sum of Rs. 10,000/-and had given up her right in the property, and Abdullah Khan had been in exclusive possession of the property since 111. 1972 and any right that Fathima Kathoon had, she had lost. The case of tenancy it as denied. The offer of Rs. 10,000/- is consideration for the property was also denied. According to the defendants, it was curious that a person of another religious faith as the plaintiff has come forward to purchase this property, which was occupied by a Muslim family. In spite of the right of the defendants, the plaintiffs had purchased litigation. Most im