A. Selvam, J.

1. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-09-2006 passed in C.S. No. 504 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted C.S. No. 504 of 1998 on the file of this Court praying for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and also for vacant possession of the suit property wherein the present appellants and the remaining respondents have been arrayed as defendants .

3. The averments made in the plaint are that one Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekaran has purchased the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 26-09-1963 executed by the Advocate Commissioner in pursuance of Court-auction sale. After purchase, she has become absolute owner of the same. During her life time, she has executed a Will dated 30-09-1975 and thereby, appointed Sri. R. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate and DR.H.B.N. Shetty, IAS as Executors of the Estate in accordance with the terms of the Will. The testator has vested the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-Trust and the names of the Trustees have also been mentioned. The Will has been probated as per order passed in T.O.S. No. 28 of 1982 on 28-10-1995. The suit property and other properties have become absolute properties of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has come to know that the first defendant even though a party in the sale deed dated 26-09-1963 claimed right over the suit property by virtue of a Will alleged to have been executed by Somasundaram Chettiar. The first defendant through his Power of Attorney viz., the second defendant has sold the suit property in favour of the defendants 3 to 6. The first defendant has had no salable interest. The defendants 3 to 6 have not derived any title to the suit property. In the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted so as to declare that the sale deeds effected in favour of the defendants 3 to 6 by the first defendant through second defendant are void and also for the reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

4. The written statement filed on the side of the defendants 3 to 6 may be summarised as follows:

The suit property originally belong to one Somasundaram Chettiar who is the none other than the father of the first defendant. The said Somasundaram Chettiar has purchased the same through a registered sale deed and he enjoyed the same during his life time. During his life time he has executed a Will dated 30-05-1962 and thereby, bequeathed the suit property in favour of the first defendant. The said Somasundaram Chettiar has passed away on 14-06-1962 and therefore, the Will dated 30-05-1962 has come into effect and the same has been probated as per order passed in O.P.No.131 of 1992. The first defendant has become absolute owner of the suit property. The defendants 3 to 6 have purchased the same and therefore, they are all bona fide purchasers for value without notice of any encumbrance. It is false to aver that one Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekaran has purchased the suit property on 26-09-1963 and the Court auction sale has not created any right in favour of Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekaran and there is no merit in the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. In the reply statement filed on the side of the plaintiff, it is averred that the first defendant has not derived any title through the Will alleged to have been executed by his father and further, his name is also found place in the sale deed executed in favour of Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekaran. The defendants 3 to 6 are not bona fide purchasers and therefore, the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for.

6. In the written statement filed on the side of the first defendant it is averred that the suit property is the absolute property of the first defendant and he has not executed any Power of Attorney deed in favour of the second defendant. The sale deed alleged to have executed by the second defendant are totally void and there is no merit in the