1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.

2. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the properties originally belonged to Subramani Chettiar, father of the defendants/appellants 1 to 3 and under a registered sale deed dated 3.3.1980, he conveyed the suit properties in favour of Parvatha Chettiar, the father of the respondent/plaintiff for a valuable consideration and eversince the date of sale, Parvatha Chettiar was in possession and enjoyment of the properties and after the death of Parvatha Chettiar, the respondent/plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the same and as the respondent/plaintiff settled in another place, the defendants were allowed to enjoy the properties on payment of rent and they were also paying rent regularly and since two years prior to filing the suit, they refuse to give the rent and also started questioning the title of the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The appellants contested the suit stating that the document dated 3.3.1980 was only a sham and nominal document and it was neve