The court ruled that lack of evidence for consideration undermines the claim of the appellant as a bona fide purchaser despite allegations of impersonation in prior deeds.

JUDGMENT

The suit was filed to declare that the plaintiff, S.Palaniandy, son of Sellaiah Pillai, is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property pursuant to sale deed dated 16.09.1994 and consequently to declare the settlement deed dated 05.04.2016, executed in favour of the 1^st defendant, K.S.Palaniyandi, by impersonation, in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Sumathy, the 2^nd defendant as null and void. It is further stated that Sumathy on her behalf and her minor daughter Jaya sold the property to the 4^th defendant on 11.04.2016, vide document No.1153/2016. The plaintiff seeks to declare the said transactions as void ab-initio on the grounds of impersonation and fraud and also prays for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any further encumbrance over the suit schedule property.

2. The suit was contested only by the 4^th defendant, the purchaser, while the defendants 1 to 3 remained absent.

3. According to the 4^th defendant, he is a bonafide purchaser for value and therefore, his right ought to be protected. He has further taken a specific stand that the settlement deed based on which he purchased the property from the 2^nd defendant, is a genuine document, duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Paramathi, on the appearance and identification of the respective parties before the Sub Registrar.

4. The trial Court had framed the following issues based on the pleadings:

“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as per sale deed dated

16.09.1994 as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of restraining the defendants by permanent injunction as prayed for?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as the settlement deed dated 05.04.2016 in favour of D2 as void ab-

initio?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as the sale deed dated 11.04.2016 in favour of D3 as void ab-initio as prayed for?

5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against D5 as prayed for?

6.To what other relief?”

5. The plaintiff, in order to establish that Ex.A3, settlement deed dated 05.04.2016 is void ab-initio due to impersonation, examined three (3) witnesses and marked thirty one (31) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A31. The 4^th defendant alone contested the matter and mounted the witness box and was examined as DW.1. No documents were filed on his behalf. Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked as Court documents based on production by the Election Commission.

6. The trial Court allowed the suit in toto, being satisfied that the Ex.A3, the settlement deed dated 05.04.201, executed in the name of K.S.Palaniandi in favour of his wife Sumathy, was not executed by the plaintiff, who is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property. The trial Court had come to the conclusion based on discrepancies in the personal details provided by the settlor and the settlee, particularly the Election Commission Identity Card (ECIC) number.

7. Specifically, the ECIC number mentioned in Ex.A3 as belonging to the settler, K.S.Palaniandi, son of Sellaiah Pillai actually corresponds one Palaniappan, son of Kuppa Goundar, as per the electoral roll marked as Ex.X4. Likewise, the settlee Sumathy, who received the property under Ex.A3 on 05.04.2016, sold the property within six days to the 4^th defendant, who is the appellant herein, on 11.04.2016 vide Ex.A4, disclosing her ECIC, LVY No.2456 762. However, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2, the voter list published by the Election Commission reveals that the said LVY 2456 762 is issued to one Sumathy, wife of Mani, whose voter ID number