Once property is sold, the title passes to the purchaser, and original owners cannot later claim rights over the property.

 JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated made in A.S.No.40 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Salem, confirming the judgement and decree dated 20.12.2010 made in O.S.No.213 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem

2. Heard Ms.Zeenath Begam, learned counsel for appellant, Mrs.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for 3^rd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The Appellant is the plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of the relief of permanent injunction but dismissed the suit with regard to the relief of declaration. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed confirming the judgement of the Trial Court. Hence, the appellant / plaintiff has filed the second appeal before this Court.

4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The 1st defendant is the brother of the plaintiff in the suit. The suit property was originally owned by the grandmother of the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant viz., Muniammal by virtue of a sale deed dated 29.04.1929. Even while Muniammal was alive, the suit property was given to the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant in equal halves and they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and the portion in which the plaintiff is in enjoyment is Door No.115 and the defendant's portion is Door No.114. As the 1^st defendant sent a legal notice alleging that the plaintiff is only a tenant and asked him to vacate the suit property, the first defendant has sent a reply notice. Thereafter also, the 1^st defendant started to disturb the possession of the plaintiff with the help of henchmen and hence, she filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. T he suit was resisted by the 1s t defendant by filing the written s tatement which is given in brief as under.-

It is true that the suit property originally belonged to the grandmother of the 1^st defendant and the plaintiff Muniammal through a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1929. On 30.09.1941, Muniammal and her son Arumuga Pandaram had mortgaged the property in favour of one Rukmaniammal and thereafter, executed another mortgage in favour of one Veeranachettiyar. On 21.01.1967, the 1^st defendant, his father and plaintiff had sold the entire suit property in favour of one Ramasamy Chettiyar and the said Ramasamy Chettiyar, in turn, sold the property on 02.05.1967 in favour of Krishnaraj Chettiyar. Later, the 1^st defendant's father had purchased half of the suit property from Krishnaraja Chettiyar on 09.09.1971. Thereafter, he mortgaged the said property in favour of one Maragathamani on 06.09.1973. As regards the condition of sale deed in favour of Maragathamani, dispute arose between himself and Maragathamani in getting back the suit property and he had filed a suit in O.S No.725 of 1976 claiming for the relief of declaration. After trial, the suit filed by Maragathamani was decreed and the suit filed by the 1^st defendant was dismissed. The 1^st defendant filed a first appeal against the above judgement and that was also dismissed. Once again, the plaintiff filed a suit against Maragathamani in O.S No.1084 of 1983 and the same was decreed on 25.10.1990. Maragathamani filed an appeal challenging the above decree and the same was allowed. The 1^st defendant filed a second appeal in S.A.No.1504 of 1991 and a compromise was arrived at between the 1^st defendant and Maragathamani, for which, the 1^st defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and thereafter, the suit was decreed in favour of the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff has got no connection with the suit property. The 1^st defendant permitted the plaintiff to reside in the suit property for a nominal rent and she defaulted in paying the rent regularly. Hence, the 1^st defendant filed a Rent Co