The court affirmed that fraudulent sale deeds do not confer valid title, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud, especially in fiduciary relationships.

JUDGMENT :

P. Vadamalai, J.

1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2015 passed in A.S. No. 21 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013 passed in O.S. No. 126 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is a plaintiff in O.S. No. 126 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff in alternative directing the defendants to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S. No. 126 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

4. Case of the plaintiff:

The plaintiff is the A.1362 Meenakshi Cooperative Building Society Limited, which was registered in the year 1939 and at present it is registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. One L.A.Ramamoorthy was the Director/Honorary Secretary of the society. For the activities of the society, he purchased the property in larger extent in S. No. 136/4 measuring 95 cents of Perungudi village from Karuppiah Thevar and Salai Karuppa Thevar through the registered sale deed, dated 15.02.1962 under document No. 976/1962 and property in S. No. 136/4 measuring 1 Acre 24 cent and in S. No. 134/4 measuring 12 cents of same village from Vellaisamy Thevar through registered sale deed, dated 19.04.1962 under document No. 2101/1962. The said L.A.Ramamoorthy resigned his post of Director/Honorary Secretary on 15.04.1986 due to his ill health. Thereafter, the post of Director/Honorary Secretary was abolished and Special Officers were appointed to administer the society activities. In the year 1999, the plaintiff society came to know that some persons created fake and forged documents and sold out the society's property. On perusal of a copy of the sale deed, dated 31.01.1996, the plaintiff society came to know that one Navanathan as if the power of attorney of L.A.Ramamoorthy through power deed, dated 02.08.1995, the society's properties were sorted as housing plots in the name of O.V.R.Mohan Nagar and sold plot Nos. 85 and 86 to the defendants. The said Navanathan had no title over the suit property. Upon criminal complaint, the alleged thumb impression of L.A.Ramamoorthy was found forged. From the date of purchase, the suit properties with a larger extent have been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff society. The property was purchased in the name of society, not in the individual name of L.A.Ramamoorthy. As per bye-law, the property of the plaintiff society can be sold only to its members. The defendants are not members of the society and the alleged sale deed stands in their name, will not bind the society. Hence, the plaintiff society filed the suit seeking declaration and injunction with alternative relief of recovery of possession.

5. Case of the Defendants:

The defendants purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 28.02.1996 from the plaintiff society. It is wrong to state that the plaintiff society's property would be sold only to its members. After purchase, a person can register himself as a member of the society. The defendants are always ready to join members of the plaintiff society. The defendants are bona fide purchasers by paying due sale consideration. The defendants presented application for membership, but due to misunderstanding among executive committee members, it was delayed. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Reply Statement of the plaintiff:-

The plaintiff society purchased the suit property in the year 1961, 1962 and it has paid property t