The central legal point established is the validity of the Will, the absolute rights of the second defendant in the properties, and the validity of the sale deed.

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 13. 1995, made in A.S.No.46 of 1993, on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 17. 1992, made in O.S.No.244 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.

2. The first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.244 of 1988 is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the suit, who is the first respondent herein, had filed the suit on the file of the District Munsif Court, praying for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property.

3. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.244 of 1988, had stated that, out of the total extent of 1.33 acres, in R.S.No.65/4, in No.137, Vilunthamavadi village, in Nagapattinam, an extent of 67 cents, on the western portion of the land, had originally, belonged to Rethina Koundar, the husband of the first defendant and adoptive father of the second defendant. Rethina Koundar, while in a sound and disposing state of mind and bodily health, had bequeathed all his properties, including the 67 cents in the suit properties, under a Will, dated 22. 1971. The Will has been duly attested, in accordance with law and it has been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirupundi, as document No.71, in Book 3 of the year 1971.

4. It has been further stated that, as per the Will of Rethina Koundar, the entire extent of 67 cents in the suit properties had been given to his adopted son, who is the second defendant in the suit. After the death of Rethina Koundar, the second defendant had succeeded to the entire properties, in accordance with the Will. Thus, the second defendant had got into possession of the land with an extent of 67 cents, in R.S.No.65/4. The patta had also been transferred in his name and he has also been paying the land revenue to the Government.

5. It has been further stated that the second defendant was a minor on the date of the death of the adoptive father, Rethina Koundar. Therefore, the first defendant, being the adoptive mother, was in possession and enjoyment of the properties given to the second defendant by Rethina Koundar, by his Will, dated 22. 1971. The first defendant, as the adoptive mother of the second defendant and as his guardian, had sold an extent of 7 cents, on the western portion, in the suit survey number, to one Mariyappan.

6. After attaining majority, the second defendant, as the absolute owner of the entire 60 cents, had sold the said properties to the plaintiff, under a sale deed, dated 9. 1987, for a consideration of Rs.14,000/-. The second defendant had received the entire sale consideration and had discharged the loan amounts incurred by him for his family expenses and at the time of his marriage.

7. It has been further submitted that, immediately after the execution of the sale deed, the second defendant had put the plaintiff in possession of the 60 cents of land. Thereafter, the plaintiff had also got the patta transferred in his name, in patta No.855.

8. It has been further stated that, in the Will, dated 22. 1971, executed by Rethina Koundar, the properties, set out in the B schedule of the Will, had been given to the second defendant. The Testator, Rethina Koundar, had added a condition in the Will, in respect of the properties given to the second defendant. Accordingly, the second defendant and his heirs should enjoy the properties, without the power of alienation.

9. The plaintiff had stated that the said condition is void, as it imposes an absolute restraint on alienation and as the second defendant had taken the properties given to him under the Will, absolutely. Therefore, the sale of the suit properties by the second defendant, in favour of the plaintiff, is perfectly valid. On the wrong advice of certain persons, the defendants were attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties, without initiating legal steps to set aside the sal