IMPORTANT POINT
The principles of lesion under the French Civil Code require a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of undervalue within a two-year limitation period, which the plaintiffs failed to do in this case.

JUDGMENT :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

Prayer : These Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 10.04.1996 in AS.No.83 and 57 of 1995, on the file of the Principal District Court, Pondicherry, reversing the decree and judgment date 16.03.1995, in O.S.No.221 of 1990, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pondicherry.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs had filed the above second appeals.

2. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit.

3. Pending the appeals, the 1st and 2nd Appellants died and 3rd to 5th Appellants are brought on record as LRs of the Deceased 2nd Appellant Viz., Durairaj. 6th and 7th Appellants along with Respondents 10 to 14 are brought on record as LR's of the Deceased 1st Appellant Viz., Padmanaba Reddiar.

4. Pending the appeals, the 1st and 3rd respondents also died and R3 to R9 are brought on record as LR's of deceased 1st Respondent and Respondents 15 to 18 are brought on record as LR's of the deceased 3rd respondent Viz., K.Srinivasan.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.

6. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are land properties and originally belonged to the sons of Lakshmana Reddy @ Lakshmana Reddiar of Katterikuppam, Pondicherry viz., Padmanabha Reddiar and Kuppusamy Reddiar. They had purchased the property and were in continuous possession and enjoyment. The first defendant who was a close family friend from the year 1961 represented that a new Legislation was to be enforced in the Territory of Pondicherry by which the higher land holdings by individuals will be deprived of. The 1st defendant suggested that she could purchase some of the lands for a price from the 1st plaintiff and Kuppusamy Reddiar. The 1st defendant induced them to execute a sale deed for a meager sale consideration of Rs.2,500/- for the entire extent of 15 Acres, when the land fetched a price of not less than Rs.2,000/- per acre. The 1st defendant had executed a notarial sale deed on 26.06.1961 and transcribed in R.V.625 No.89 dated 30.06.1961 for a meager sale consideration and therefore, obviously the sale is hit by the Principle of Lesion under the prevailing law and therefore is void. In view of the whole transaction being void, the 1st defendant cannot make any claim or right through the sale and as such the plaintiff had continued in occupation of the property and also raised casuarina crops aged more than 3 to 4 years.

7. Kuppusamy Reddiar died leaving behind his 6 sons and among them the 2nd plaintiff is one of the sons who also represents the other children. Even though the sale is void and unenforceable and also the 1st defendant was aware that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property, took steps to engage with the 2nd defendant for transacting a sale and therefore, the 2nd plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice to the defendants calling upon them not to have any such transactions. However, due to inadvertent mistake in the notice issued by the 2nd plaintiff it has been wrongly stated that the first plaintiff is no more. The cause of action for the suit arose in the month of February 1990 when the defendants sought to engage for the purported sale and therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit to declare the sale deed dated 29.06.1961 as void and sought to set aside the same and also for a permanent injunction.

8. The first defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement and has denied the claim of the plaintiff. According to her, the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The second plaintiff who has issued the pre-suit notice could not have had any knowledge of the transaction as either he would have not been born at all or just born. When the plaintiff has filed the suit based on the cause of action in February, 1990, the prayer to declare the sale deed of the year 1961 as void is not maintainable. The suit