JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2019 in A.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 in O.S.No.385 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram.)

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.385 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram, are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs had originally filed O.S.No.251 of 2006 before the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu and thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Tambaram and renumbered as O.S.No.385 of 2009.

3. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs, I) B.R.R.Holdings Private Limited, II) B.S.J.R.Holdings Private Limited, III) BHIMA AGRO FARMS Private Limited and IV) B.R.N.R.Holding Private Limited, seeking declaration of title with respect to the vacant land measuring to an extent of 6.67 acres (2-70-0 Hectares) in Seevaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and consequential injunction to protect possession.

4. The plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased the suit property for adequate consideration through registered sale deeds in the year 2000 and that they are in possession from that date. The 3rd defendant, D.Kulasekaran had, however, ignored the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and had executed a settlement deed in 2006 with respect to not just the suit property but to a larger extent of land measuring 14.99 acres in favour of his wife, the 2nd defendant, Rukmani Devi. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant, Rukmani Devi, and also the 3rd defendant, D.Kulasekaran, who joined as a confirming party, had sold the said larger extent of land including the suit property, to the 1st defendant, M/s.Chennai Garr-Tech Limited. The plaintiffs had also sought the reliefs to declare the said settlement deed and the sale deed as null and void and as not binding on them.

5. By judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, dismissed the suit, insofar as the relief of declaration of title was concerned and also with respect to the declaration to declare the settlement deed executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and the sale deed executed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in favour of the 1st defendant as null and void. However, the learned Sub Judge found that possession was with the plaintiffs and therefore, granted injunction protecting possession. The learned Sub Judge, also negatived other issues raised by the defendants relating to maintainability of the suit and to the valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid.

6. The plaintiffs, then, filed A.S.No.7 of 2010 before the District Court at Chengalpattu. This was made over to the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. The defendants filed Cross Objection questioning the findings given with respect to possession, maintainability of the suit and the valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid. Both the Appeal Suit and the Cross Objection were heard together and disposed of by a judgment dated 02.04.2019. The Appeal Suit was dismissed and the Cross Objection was partly allowed only with respect to the finding relating to the possession of the suit property. The learned First Appellate Judge held that the defendants were in possession of the property and therefore, set aside the grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. The learned Judge, however, found that the suit was maintainable and that the suit had been properly valued and necessary Court fee had been paid.

7. The plaintiffs then, filed the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal had been admitted. The substantial questions of law were re-framed as follows on 16.10.2019:-

“1. Whether the Courts below are right or right in holding that the life interest of Saradammal in the suit properties would not get enlarged solely on the ground