The execution of a sale deed is binding if the parties are present and the statutory procedures for disabilities are adhered to, dismissing claims of forgery when sufficient evidence exists.

ORDER :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

S.A.No.844 of 2012 has been filed by the appellants / defendants 2 & 3 against the decree and judgment dated 23.10.2008 passed in A.S.No.227 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, against the decree and judgment dated 15.06.2007 in O.S.No.887 of 2003 on the file of the 2^nd Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

Second Appeal in S.A.No.298 of 2010 has been filed by the appellant / first defendant against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 passed in A.S.No.227 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2007 in O.S.No.887 of 2003 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The suit in O.S.No.887/2003 has been filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit and on the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of the Trial Court by allowing the First Appeal and decreed the suit. Aggrieved over that, the defendants have filed these two Second Appeals.

3. The facts pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in brief:

The first plaintiff Bakkiam is the wife of late Marimuthu. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the first plaintiff and late Marimuthu. Previously, Marimuthu had married one Chinnammal and out of the said marriage, Chinnammal gave birth to one child by name Sekar. The said Sekar predeceased Chinnammal, without marriage. On 23.12.1965, the first plaintiff and the said Sekar have purchased the suit property. As the original sale deed was lost, the registration copy of the sale deed is produced before the Court. From the date of purchase, the first plaintiff and Sekar had been in enjoyment of the same.

3.1 The defendants are the daughter-in-law and sons of Perumal Goundar and they proclaimed that they are going to sell away the suit property. The defendants have created a sale deed as though it has been executed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 on 30.01.1991 in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs are not the parties to the said sale deed, but it is a forged one. Hence, it will not create any right in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and they never executed any sale deed in favour of anyone. Subsequently, on 30.11.2003, the defendants have tried to take forcible possession from the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction along with the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property.

4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the third defendant and adopted by the second defendant are as follows:

The relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Marimuthu and Sekar is not disputed. The suit property has been sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants on 30.01.1991 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.25,800/- and thereafter, the possession of the suit property was given to the defendants on 30.01.1991. From then onwards, the defendants were in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property. As the title has been passed in fa