Possession by plaintiff held unlawful.

1. Theunsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit property is a portion situate in Periyeri Village, Salem Town, Ward D, Block 19 T.S.No.36. The property originally belonged to one Maruthai Ammal, wife of Seguva Pillai and Sakunthala and Lakshmi are two daughters. They are the legal heirs of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal. The 1st defendant entered into an agreement with the owners of the property to purchase the entire area measuring 59 cents. He is a real estate dealer, doing business. The property was put in possession of the 1st defendant by the owners in pursuance of the agreement of sale. The 1st defendant levelled the lands and divided into house plots and laid reads. He entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell plot No.70 as vacant site at the rate of Rs.6 per sq.ft. on 21.6.1977. The plaintiff paid Rs.501 by way of advance and entered into an agreement with the 1st defendant to purchase Plot No.71 on 12.1.1980 and paid an advance of Rs.6,750. The plaintiff was put in possession of plots in pursuance of the agreements of sale on the respective dates. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of these properties. He dug a well and constructed building and also a compound wall. The building was assessed for property tax by Salem Municipality. The plaintiff has been paying the property tax also. He is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. The 1st defendant has to execute sale deed after receiving the balance sale price within six months. After the agreement, there was dispute between defendants 2 to 5 and there were suits. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale price and to take the sale deed. As the first defendant has not yet got title from defendants 2 to 5 the performance of the contract is pending. The defendants have no right to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and, hence, the suit.

3. Defendants 2 and 3 resisted the suit. The total extent of the property is 59 cents. The entire area originally belonged to one Alagammal, wife of Karupanna Pillai and daughter of Mariappa Pillai alias Gurnatha Pillai. The said Alagammal as the sole and exclusive owner of the 59 cents including the suit property has executed a registered will dated 23.5.1952 in favour of her daughter Murugayee Ammal and her grand daughter Sakunthala, Lakshmi and Dhanalakshmi. Item No.1 of the property is a house bearing door Nos.94, 95in Madhavaraya Chetti Street, Shevapet,Salem. Item 2 is the land viz., 59 cents and the suit property is a part of the said item 2 in the will dated 23.5.1952. By virtue of the will, Murugayee Ammal was not given any right in the suit property for the entire 59 cents and she was given only a right of management on behalf of her daughter. Murugayee Ammal died some 11 years age. By virtue of the said will, defendants 4, 5 and Dhanalakshmi became the full owners. Dhanalakshmi died some 14 years back. They are the heirs of the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal. Defendants 2 to 5 are exclusively entitled to the properties. Murugayee Ammal has no power of alienation.

4. There was no agreement of sale between the owners of 59 cents and the 1st defendant at any point of time. The fact that the plaintiff has not chosen to give the date of agreement of sale and other particulars is proof positive, to show that the alleged agreement is only a myth. Defendants 2 to 5 never entered into any agreement with the 1st defendant at any point of time. They did not receive any advance amount. They never handed over possession of the property to the 1st defendant. The partner of the 1st defendant by name Chinnappan is a very influential estate broken. Chinnappan cajoling them that he would sell their property of 59 cents as house plots for such a very high price. The said Chinnappan talked to Murugayee Ammal and stated that their thumb impressions were necessary for that purpo