Marriage between first plaintiff and "G" disputed by defendant.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.416 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Gingee, are the appellants in the second appeal. They filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ respondent from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

2. Their case was as follows:

The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Kuppa Kounder. Kuppa Kounder had two sons, Poongavana Kounder and Govindasamy. Poongavanam married the first plaintiff and a son by name Sampath was born to them. Poongavanam died leaving his wife and his son and as per the custom in the community, the first plaintiff married Poongavanams brother Govindasamy, who was at that time unmarried. The second plaintiff was born to Govindasamy and the first plaintiff.

Sampath died unmarried and his share was inherited by the first plaintiff. Govindasamy and the second plaintiff constituted a joint family. There was misunderstanding between Govindasamy and the first plaintiff. This was utilised by the defendant. He practised deception and fraud and induced Govindasamy to execute a sale deed in his favour. When Govindasamy came to know about the evil design of the defendant, he refused to sign the sale deed. After the death of Govindasamy, the defendant forged his signature in the sale deed and got it registered compulsorily. Taking advantage of the forged sale deed, the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs possession of the suit properties necessitating the filing of the suit.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending inter alia that Govindasamy voluntarily sold the suit properties to him, that after executing the sale deed, Govindasamy refused to co-operate in registering the document, that the marriage between Govindasamy and the first plaintiff was not true and that the suit was not maintainable.

4. Thetrial Court on the pleadings framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the first plaintiff remarried Govindasamy Kounder?

(2) Whether the suit properties were the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and Govindasamy Kounder?

(3) Whether the sale deed, dated 4.9.1981 is a fraudulent and void documents?

(4) Whether the sale deed, dated 4.9.1981 executed by Govindasamy Kounder in favour of the defendant, is true and valid?

(5) Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit properties on the basis of his ownership?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and permanent injunction? and

(7) To what reliefs?

5. On the sideof the plaintiffs, as many as 24 documents were filed and marked as Exs.A-1 to A-24 and including the first plaintiff five witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5. On the side of the defendant 11 documents were filed and marked as Exs.B-1 to B-11 and four witnesses including the defendant were examined as D.Ws.1 to 4.

6. From the pleadings and the oral and the documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif, held: The first plaintiff remarried Govindasamy Kounder as per custom prevailing in the Community, and that the second plaintiff was born to the first plaintiff and Govindasamy Kounder. The suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and Govindasamy Kounder. The sale deed dated 4.9.1981 is not a true and valid document, but, fraudulent and void document. The defendant has not established that he is in possession of the suit properties on the basis of his ownership. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. By judgment and decree dated 29.4.1988, the learned District Munsif, decreed the suit.

7. The respondent filed appeal in A.S.No.36 of 1988 before the Sub Court, Tindivanam. The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following point for consideration Whether the sale deed dated 4.9.1981 is true and therefore valid?

8. The learned Subordinate Judge held that, if at all, the sale deed was a voidable document and i