IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.12.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.A.No.226 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007, 1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009

1. Kulandai Marie

2. Remo(died)

3. Joseph

4. Louis Pasther Amotorpavma

5. Celine

6. Marie Christine

7. Anthonydos ... Appellants ( Second Appellant died, Appellants 4 to 7 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased second appellant vide order of Court dated 779 to 781 of 2023 in S.A.No.226 f 2007)

- Vs -

Marie Rock Emile Vangamudiar, son of Marie Susainathan Vanagamudiar (died)

represented by Lrs.

1. Valanthine ( died)

2. Marie Irudayanantham

3. Christian Marie Josphine

4. Zheno ( R1 died, R2 to R4 ( already on record ) are legal heirs of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated12.08.2022 made in S.A.No. 226 of 2007)

... Respondents Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 24.02.2004 in A.S.No.22 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.1999 in O.S.No.431 of

1997 on the Court of the Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry. For Appellant : Mr.R. Saravanan for Sai krishnan For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.R. Subbiah for G. Sumitra Senior Counsel For Respondent -1 : Died ( Steps taken)

JUDGMENT

The instant second appeal has been filed at the instance of the defendant. The first respondent was the original plaintiff' and the respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts which give rise to the instance second appeal is as follows:

The suit property originally belongs to one Lourdusamy who is non other than the brother-in-law of the plaintiff'. The first defendant is the wife of the said Lourdusamy, and the second and third defendants are the children of Lourdusamy. According to the plaintiff' the said Lourdusamy by notaire sale deed transcribed on 05.09.1964 sold an extent of 3 ares and 20 centenaries. The plaintiff further submits that at the time of purchase of the said extent, on request of the said Lourdusamy he was permitted to put up a small hut measuring an extent of 15 x 25 feet and was permitted to be reside there. After the demise of Lourdusamy, his widow the first defendant continued to live in the small portion, and the plaintiff have leased out the remaining portions to 3^rd parties. It is the submission of the plaintiff' that the second and third defendants were not at all residing in the suit property. It is the submission of the plaintiff that after the demise of the Lourdusamy the children's attitude were hostile to the plaintiff's interest. Hence, the plaintiff revoked the licence granted to deceased Mr.Lourdusamy who is the husband of the first defendant, by notice to all the defendants dated 11.06.1997. However, the defendant sent a false and frivolous reply containing, untenable allegations. It was contended by the defendant that the sale deed executed by Lourdusamy on 05.09.1964 was a sham and nominal document and not supported by any consideration. It is the submission of the plaintiff that after the execution of the sale deed dated 05.09.1964 the mutation in respect of suit property has been effected in favour of the plaintiff, and that he has been enjoying the property as its rightful owner. Hence, the plaintiff come forward with the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by contending that his father Lourdusamy has no right, title to execute the sale deed, and the claim of the plaintiff' is barred by limitation. It was also contended by the defendant that the suit was not properly valued. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Evidences, Documents and findings of the both the Court below Before the Trial Court the plaintiff' examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and on behalf of the defendant, first de