J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2008, before the District Court, Madurai against the respondents 1 & 2 for recovery of possession of the suit property.

2. The trial Court after trial, dismissed the suit. Challenging the said dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

3. Brief facts to the case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, the plaintiff purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed, dated 2.7.2008, from the second defendant for valuable consideration. The second defendant purchased the property from R.Balakrishnan Iyer. R.Subramaniya Iyer and R.Rajamani Iyer sons of Ramamoorthy Iyer under a registered sale deed, dated 06.05.1989. From the date of his purchase, the second defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property and after purchase, the plaintiff become the owner of the property. The property tax changed in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. It is submitted that the first defendant, who is the son of late. Balakrishnan Iyer, took some time to redeem the property and filed a suit for injunction against the second defendant and 3 others in O.S.No.413/1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town and the suit was contested and decreed in favour of first defendant on 09.09.2003. The learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town found that the first defendant was in possession and not to be disturbed. It is stated as the first defendant is not entitled to be in possession of the property. The first defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit property. He is liable to pay damages for use and occupation. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of possession of the property.

4. The first defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that as the plaintiff is not entitled to the property and he is not having any right over the property. it is stated as the property belonged to Palanganatham Iyerwal Trust. It is stated as the first defendant and 4 other persons as trustees have exchanged the properties belonged to the Trust and got the suit property for trust on 14.10.1967. In the said document, the first defendant along with Balakrishnan Iyer, Chandrammal, Subramanian and Rajamani totally 5 persons are shown as trustee and exchanged the property. It is stated as the plaintiff has purchased the Trust property from second defendant and 3 other trustees only and apart from that the Trust property cannot be purchased in both 1989 sale deed and 2.7.2008 sale deed. Both sale deeds are void and nonest. Hence the suit property is the Trust property and the plaintiff cannot purchase the trust property and the plaintiff cannot have any right, title or interest over the trust property.

5. The second defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that as the first defendant is in unauthorised possession and occupation of the property and he has no right and title over the suit property and he is liable to be removed from the suit property. The first defendant is not a trustee and the suit property is not a Trust property and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the Trust property.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues for consideration:

(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property?

(ii)Whether the sale deed, dated 06.03.1989 executed by R.Balakrishnan Iyer, R.Subramania Iyer and Rajamani Iyer is valid?

(iii)Whether the property belongs to Palanganatham Iyerwal Trust?

(iv) To what other relief if any the plaintiff is entitled?

7. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.A1 and Ex.A9. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and 12 documents were m