JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. She filed a suit in O.S.No.187 of 2009 seeking declaration that she is a bonafide purchaser of Plot Nos.9, 10 and 11 and also sought for declaration that the decree obtained by one S.Jayaraj, predecessor in interest of the respondents 1 to 5 in O.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore in respect of the suit property was invalid and nonest in the eye of law. The plaintiff also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 or any person claiming through her from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Further the plaintiff sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 or any person claiming through them from implementing the decree obtained in O.S.No.34 of 1984, pursuant to the execution petition in E.P.No.10 of 2003. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.3 of 2021was also dismissed by the first appellate court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff has come before this court.

2. According to the plaintiff, she purchased plot No.9 comprised in survey No.135/1C in Maniampet Village, Wallajah Panchayat Union from the 8^th defendant, namely Revathi, represented by her power of attorney Kaliappan, 7^th defendant, under a registered sale deed dated 31.08.1988. Similarly, the plaintiff’s mother Soundaram purchased plot Nos.10 and 11, situated in the above mentioned survey number from one A.M.Wilson-6^th defendant, represented by his power of attorney Kaliappan-7^th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 17.03.1988. The plaintiff’s mother Soundaram died on 30.09.2007 leaving behind her husband D.Henry Sundararaj, her daughters, namely the plaintiff Prema Ravi Selvakumari and Helan Santhakumari to succeed her estate. Thereafter, the other 3 legal heirs executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff releasing their 3/4th share in the property purchased by Soundaram in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became absolute owner of plot Nos.9, 10 and 11, which is described as suit property.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after purchase, she had put up construction in the suit property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that the deceased 6^th defendant A.M.Wilson had entered into a sale agreement with the deceased S.Jayaraj for selling the suit property among other property with an extent of 1.28 ½ acres situated in survey No.135 and latter, the said Jayaraj obtained a decree for specific performance against the said A.M.Wilson in O.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore on 29.09.1989. Subsequently, sale deed was also executed in favour of S.Jayaraj through court in respect of the suit schedule property.

4. It was also the specific case of the plaintiff that she was not aware of the legal proceedings initiated by S.Jayaraj against the above said A.M.Wilson in respect of the suit schedule properties and therefore, she was a bonafide purchaser of the suit properties for a valuable consideration. The plaintiff further stated that pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of S.Jayaraj through court, an execution petition has been filed by the defendants 1 to 5 seeking possession of the property. According to the plaintiff, since she is a bonafide purchaser of the property, she cannot be dispossessed by the defendants 1 to 5 in execution of decree in O.S.No.34 of 1984. In such circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the reliefs as stated supra. 5. The 3^rd defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 1, 4 and 5. In the written statement of the defendants, it was stated that the predecessor in interest of the defendants 1 to 5, namely S.Jayaraj obtained a decree for specific performance in respect of the suit property in O.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore an