The court emphasized the necessity of proving a Will's validity and the concept of bona fide purchasers, reiterating that the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish title and possession.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The above second appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 passed in A.S. No.24 of 2014 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2013 in O.S. No.126 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.

2.The defendants 1 & 2 in O.S.No.126 of 2010 are the appellants in the above second appeals. The suit in O.S.No.126 of 2010 is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the 1^st defendant and declare the sale deed in favour of the 2^nd defendant by the plaintiff's father Manoharan and the sale deed in favour of the 1^st defendant by the 2^nd defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from alienating or creating encumbrances over the suit property.

3.According to the plaintiff in the above suit, the suit property originally belonged to one Neelammal, the grandmother of the plaintiff by virtue of a sale deed dated 12.06.1975. One Manoharan, father of the plaintiff is the only son of the said Neelammal. The suit property was in possession and enjoyment of Neelammal until her death. She executed a registered Will dated 01.09.1995 bequeathing the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The said Neelammal died on 16.04.2000. The father of the plaintiff died on 03.03.2005 even during the life time of Neelammal, the suit property was let out for rent. After the death of Neelammal the plaintiff was collecting rents from the tenant in the suit property. While so, when the plaintiff visited the suit property in the first week of February 2006 for collecting rent, he was surprised to see that the tenants were evicted from the suit properties by the defendants. Immediately, the plaintiff applied for encumbrance certificate and came to know that the suit property was sold out by the plaintiff's father Manoharan to the 2^nd defendant through a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2005 and thereafter, the 2^nd defendant sold the suit property to the 1^st defendant vide sale deed dated 05.12.2005. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 10.01.2008 to the defendants for cancelling the sale deeds and to handover the possession of the suit property. On 20.01.2008 the defendants have sent a reply notice denying the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the above suit.

4.The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by stating that the father of the plaintiff namely Manoharan derived title to the suit property after the death of his mother Neelammal. Thereafter, he executed a registered sale deed on 14.02.2005 in favour of the 2^nd defendant for a valuable consideration. The 2^nd defendant sold the suit property to the 1^st defendant under registered sale deed dated 05.12.2005. the 1^st defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valid consideration. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property and he never lived in the suit property with the original owner Neelammal. The said Neelammal never executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged Will is a fabricated document. The 1^st defendant is alone in possession of the suit property. The father of the plaintiff sold the property to the 2^nd defendant to meet out the medical expenses and debt incurred by Neelammal. The original Will was not produced by the plaintiff. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.126 of 2010. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff preferred the appeal suit in A.S.No.24/2004. T