No conveyance executed of agreement to sell.

One Chockalinga Mudaliar had no sons but had two daughters by names Janaki Ammal, wife of the first defendant, whose son is the 2nd defendant and Kuppammal, the 3rd defendant, whose husband is the 4th defendant. This Chockalinga Mudaliar on 15th May, 1933, executed a will bequeathing all his properties to his two daughters who were minors on that date, though Janaki Ammal was married. Under the terms of the will be authorised the 1st defendant the husband of Janaki Ammal, to manage the properties and put Kuppammal in possession of her share of the properties on her attaining majority. On 20th December 1933, the suit properties were purchased under Exhibit B-1 in the name of Janaki Ammal and Kuppammal. On 30th June, 1937, Janaki Ammal executed a power-of-attorney in favour of her husband, the first defendant (Exhibit A -18). On 24th June, 1947 the first defendant executed an agreement, Exhibit A-1, in favour of the 5th defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff, for selling the properties in the villages of Ozhundiampattu and Raya Oddai belonging to Janaki Ammal and Kuppammal for a consideration of Rs. 7,500 and received an advance of Rs. 2 000. On 6th September, 1947, the first defendant received a further sum of Rs. 1,000, and on 8th March, 1948 he received another sum of Rs. 1,000 making a total of Rs. 4,000 as advance pursuant to the agreement, dated 24th June 1947. Kuppammal instituted O.S. No. 42 of 1954 on the file of the District Court Cuddalore, which was transferred to and disposed of as O.S. No. 53 of 1956 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, for partition of her one-half share in the suit properties as well as the other properties belonging to both the sisters. In that suit the plaintiff herein and the 5th defendant were impleaded as defendants 9 and 8 and they filed a written statement which has been marked as Exhibit A-16 in the present case. That suit for partition was decreed and in that decree items 14 to 24 of the suit properties were allotted to the share of Kuppammal. Subsequent to the decree in that suit on 1st January, 1957 in E.P. R. No. 135 of 1956 in O.S. No. 53 of 1956 delivery of items 14 to 24 in favour of Kuppammal was recorded. Further an unregistered lease deed, dated 4th February, 1957 was also executed by the plaintiff in favour of Kuppammal. Subsequently on the ground that the plaintiff had committed default in payment of rents C.R.P. No. 11 of 1959 was filed on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and O.S. No. 474 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Tindivanam, was instituted for the recovery of arrears of rent. It must be pointed out that in 1955 Janaki Ammal died, and at that time O.S. No. 52 of 1954 was pending. After the death of Janaki Ammal the first defendant and 2nd defendant were recognised as the legal representatives of Janaki Ammal and were brought on record as parties to that suit. It is under these circumstances O.S. No. 112 of 1961 was instituted on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore by the plaintiff for declaration of his title in respect of the suit properties, which constitute 24 items and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with his possession and for declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1956 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore was not binding on the plaintiff and for setting aside the decree. The plaintiff impleaded his father as the 6th defendant in the suit by putting forward the contention that, though Exhibit A-1 Was executed in favour of the brother of the plaintiff, namely, the 5th defendant, it was really for the benefit of the joint family consisting of the 6th defendant, the father, and the plaintiff and the 5th defendant, the two sons, and therefore it was their right to the suit properties that was sought to be declared in the suit.

In the plaint, the plaintiff put forward the contention that the first de