JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2002 made in A.S.No.127 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2001 made in O.S.No.442 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.442 of 1996 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram for the relief of declaration of title and possession over 'A' schedule property and declaration of title and recovery of possession over 'B' schedule property. The suit was dismissed. As against the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.127 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The said first appeal was also dismissed. As against which, the present second appeal has been filed.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was originally owned by her father namely Muthaian Nadar who passed away on 27.10.1995 and her mother had also passed away on 04.11.1995 leaving behind the plaintiff as the sole legal heir. The plaintiff further contended that while her father was alive, he did not take care of the plaintiff and her mother and hence, both of them filed O.S.No.164 of 1977 seeking maintenance before the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. In I.A.No.396 of 1977, an order of attachment was passed with regard to the suit schedule property. But later, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.209 of 1978 and it was partly allowed granting maintenance in favour of the plaintiff alone. In order to defraud the maintenance rights, the father of the plaintiff had executed Exhibits B1 to B6 sale deeds in favour of the first defendant.

4. The plaintiff further contended that the father of the plaintiff has obtained a release deed fraudulently under Exhibit B7 from the plaintiff and her mother on 10.07.1990 which is an invalid document. Since the sale deeds in favour of the first defendant are void in the eye of law, the release deed executed by the plaintiff and her mother are also invalid. The plaintiff is the sole legal heirs of the deceased Muthaian Nadar. Based on the above said pleadings, the plaintiff claimed declaration and possession over the 'A' schedule property and recovery of possession over 'B' schedule property.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement contending that at the time of death, Muthaian Nadar was not having any property and during his life time, the said Muthaian Nadar has already sold out all the properties in favour of the first defendant under various sale deeds. Thereafter, the first defendant has executed a document in favour of the second defendant for an extent of two cents. The defendants further contended that since O.S.No.164 of 1977 was dismissed, the order of interim attachment passed in the said suit has also got terminated. The decree of the First Appellate Court will not revive the order of attachment. The defendants further contended that all the sale deeds have been validly executed and the first defendant is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The defendants further contended that while he had purchased the property, there was no attachment over the suit schedule property. He further contended that even assuming that there were any rights in favour of the plaintiff and her mother, they have executed a release deed under Exhibit B7 on 10.07.1990 and thereafter, they do not have any right over the suit schedule property. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff has initiated O.S.No.914 of 1990 for the relief of partition and the said suit was also dismissed for default. Since the suit schedule properties are separate properties of Muthaian Nadar and he has executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant during his life time, the plaintiff will not be entitled to make any claim as a legal heir of the deceased Muthaian Nadar.

6. The pl