JUDGMENT :

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

1. The plaintiff is on appeal before this Court. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 07.02.2018, made in A.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2003, passed in O.S.No.487 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their litiagative status before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Venkatasubbaiyar, through a sale deed, dated 30.10.1887, in Ex.A1. It is further case of the plaintiff that the said Venkatasubbaiyar died on 17.02.1971 leaving behind his son, Venkatraman, the third defendant and his grandson, Eswaran, the fourth defendant. Pursuant to his death, the third and fourth defendants, who are the son and grandson, inherited the property and were in absolute possession and enjoyment.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the third and fourth defendants executed a sale deed on 07.02.2002 in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,70,000/-. Even though the sale deed has been executed, the document has not been released in view of the reference made towards valuation of the property. It is also the further case of the plaintiff that the Sub Registrar concerned had issued a notice on 13.08.2002 for inspection and pursuant to which, the plaintiff had also paid the deficit stamp duty on 23.10.2002. In the meantime, since the defendants 1 and 2 illegally attempted to trespass into the suit property and interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has come up with the suit for permanent injunction.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing a written statement disputing the claim made by the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendants 1 and 2 that the suit is a collusive proceedings undertaken by the plaintiff and his alleged vendor and further, the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff is a fabricated and forged document. It is also the further case of the defendants 1 and 2 that the plaintiff is not the bona fide purchaser for value. In a sense, the defendants 1 and 2 have disputed the title of the plaintiff and have claimed title to the suit property.

6. It is the further case of the defendants 1 and 2 that the plaintiff's vendor had already sold the property bearing Plot Nos.14-A and 14-B in favour of the first and second defendants through two separate sale deeds, both dated 03.05.1993, for valuable consideration. It is their further case that on the date of purchase, the defendants 1 and 2 have been put in possession of the suit property. Further, Plot No.14-C and Plot No.13 were sold by the vendor, the defendants 3 and 4, in favour of the sister of the defendants 1 and 2, Shameem Banu. The defendants 1 and 2 have averred that they have put up a compound wall enclosing all the three plots bearing Plot Nos.14-A, 14-B and 14-C and they have been in possession of the suit property and based on which, patta has been issued in their favour in Patta Nos.84 and 97.

7. The defendants 1 and 2 further alleged that their vendors, the third defendant, in order to cheat and defraud the defendants 1 and 2, malafidely, had went ahead and executed documents, dated 21.02.2000 cancelling the sale deeds in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, which are void documents, which came to the knowledge of the first defendant and immediately, he issued a legal notice to the third defendant on 16.09.2003. Since the cancellation is a void document, the collusive and fabricated document created by the third defendant and the plaintiff does not create any right in his favour, much less they have any valid title to the suit property and therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff cannot be sustained and sought for dismissal of the suit.

8. During trial, the plaintiff examined one Gopal as PW