A violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act does not invalidate the passing of title to the purchaser of the property.

1. The unsuccessful 1st defendant is the appellant. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.10.2001 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.59 of 2001, whereby the decree and judgment dated 22.11.2000 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sirkali, in O.S.No.116 of 1996 were confirmed.

2. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.116 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali, against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants 1 to 3, to hand over the possession of the suit property and also for future mesne profits.

3. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, is as follows:- The 1st defendant is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff. The suit property is the self acquired property of the grandfather of the plaintiff, viz., Govindasamy Padayachi, who had two sons Kanagasabai Padayachi (father of the plaintiff) and Sivaprakasam, who is the 1st defendant. The said Govindasamy Padayachi exectued a Will dated 25.02.1989, in which the suit property described as A Schedule, was bequeathed to the plaintiff absolutely. The said Govindasamy Padayachi died on 02.03.1990 and therefore, the Will had come into existence after his death. As per the terms of the Will dated 25.02.1989, the suit property had to be managed by the 1st defendant and whenever the plaintiff makes a demand, the 1st defendant should surrender possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing at Singapore. When the plaintiffs father came over to India and orally demanded possession of the suit properties from the 1st defendant on 19.03.1996, he did not comply with his demand. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 23.03.1996 calling upon the 1st defendant to surrender possession of the suit properties, but the 1st defendant sent a reply dated 26.03.1996 with false allegations stating that the plaintiff had no right to own the properties in India and he had not authorised his father to make the demand on his behalf and for which, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder dated 02.04.1996, but the 1st defendant had not surrendered possession of the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit as against the 1st defendant and also defendants 2 and 3, who were in possession of the suit properties under some arrangement with the 1st defendant, to surrender possession of the suit properties and put the plaintiff in possession of the same and to pay future mesne profits.

4. The said suit was resisted by the 1st defendant by taking a defence that the plaintiff is a citizen of Singapore and as such, he is not entitled to hold the property in India and it is a violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. As per the Will, the 1st defendant had to manage the suit properties till a demand is made by the plaintiff; but so far, no valid demand was made by the plaintiff and the father of the plaintiff is not entitled to demand possession of the suit properties nor can he obtain possession. Moreover, in the year 1993, when the plaintiff and his mother came to India, they informed to the 1st defendant that they were not in need of the suit properties and the father of the plaintiff has also informed him that he can take the properties absolutely. Thus, the suit may be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the trial court has framed eight issues and in order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the power agent of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked and on the side of the defendants,the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 besides examining two other witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3 and Ex.B-1 was marked. The trial court, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record both oral and documentary, has decreed the suit with a direction to the plaintiff to file an application under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. for future mesne profits. As