G. Jayachandran, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The suit was filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, the sale made in favour of the defendants 4 to 7 is void and to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property.

2. The case of the plaintiff before is that she is the widow of late B.M. Murugesan, who is the owner of the suit property. The said Murugesan died on 05.05.1994. After his death, as a sole legal heir of Murugesan, the plaintiff succeed to his estate. Due to matrimonial dispute, the said Murugesan deserted the plaintiff and therefore, she filed M.C. No. 282 of 1988 on the file of the learned Additional Family Court, Chennai and obtained an order dated 20.06.1990 for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- per month, which was paid to her till April 1994. According to the plaintiff, after deserting her, her husband Murugesan resided along with the first defendant and taking advantage of the same, the first defendant had let out the schedule property to the defendants 2 and 3 and the rent thereof was collected by the first defendant. After the demise of B.M. Murugesan, the plaintiff requested the first defendant to transfer the tenancy in her favour so that she could collect the rent from the defendants 2 and 3, but it was refused by the first defendant. In such circumstance, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration. Pending suit, the first defendant has sold the suit schedule property to defendants 4 to 7 on 26.05.1995. Therefore, the plaint was amended impleading the purchasers pendente lite, the defendants 4 to 7 and included the prayer to declare the sale in favour of the defendants 4 to 7 as void.

3. The first defendant filed his written statement claiming that he is the sole surviving legal heir of the deceased B.M. Murugesan, having born to his second wife. According to the first defendant, the deceased executed a Will dated 29.05.1986 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Office, Periamet, whereby he had bequeathed the suit property in his favour. As per the intention of the testator, he paid a sum of Rs.200/- per month to the plaintiff. The specific case of the first defendant is that B.M. Murugesan had three wives, two of them predeceased B.M. Murugesan. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the surviving legal heirs of B.M. Murugesan. As per the will, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed the estate of B.M. Murugesan but only entitled for Rs.200/- per month for her maintenance.

4. The plaintiff has filed a reply statement alleging that the first defendant is not the son of B.M. Murugesan and he was an orphan brought from Kasthuribai hospital. The deceased Murugesan, on account of his chronic ailment was keeping the first defendant as a helper. Taking advantage of the position, the first defendant has fabricated and created a "Will" alleged to have been executed by B.M. Murugesan. The Will was not probated as required by law and therefore, it cannot be relied upon by the first defendant. The first defendant, taking advantage of the ill health of the deceased, continued to exploit the situation. As regards the plaintiff, due to fear of her life, she has left the suit premises leaving the deceased. The Plaintiff has filed the suit prior to the purchase of the suit property by defendants 4 to 7. The defendants 4 to 7 have purchased the suit property to deprive the right of the plaintiff. Having purchased it on their own risk from a person who has saleable right, title, interest to the suit property, these defendants have no locus to contest suit.

5. The defendants 4 to 7 also contended the suit by stating that the suit property was purchased by one Melliammal, the mother of the first defendant. The defendants 4 to 7, after verifying the title deeds and legal heir certificate issued by Tahsildar, have purchased the suit property after exercising prudent care and valid search.