Marappa was number a man without means and he owned and possessed valuable properties.
It is on record that Karuppanna the father of Marappa was alive till 6.2.1979.
781 of 1985 for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent Doraisamy from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit proper tics being Survey No.
19,000 Rs.
There is numberevidence to suggest that during the period before 1979 to 1984 Marappa had to incur loans for the legal necessity for maintaining the family.
The High Court disposed of all the said appeals by a companymon judgment dated December 1, 1994.
1507 of 1988 and Transferred A.S. No.
15,000 was paid to two creditors on account of alleged pronotes.
10,000 and Rs.
Being aggrieved by the judgments passed in the said suits, Marappa preferred appeals but during the pendency of such appeals, Marappa died and his son Sadasivam the appellant before this Court was brought on record as his legal representative.
Transferred Appeal No.
168/87.
As a matter of fact, it is the positive case of the respondent Doraisamy that with the knowledge and companysent of Marappa the said will was executed by Karuppanna where Marappa was a signatory.
19,000 and out of the said sum of Rs.
15,000 on account of two pronotes executed by him in favour Chinnappa and Nallusamy respective for Rs.
187 of 1985 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
A.S. No.
274 of 1985 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
96 of 1988 and Transferred A.S. No.
Both the said creditors have deposed in the case instituted by Marappa as witnesses for the plaintiff and they have categorically deposed that they did number advance any loan for which pronotes had to be executed in their favour.
187 of 1985 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the said Marappa in favour of the respondent Doraisamy was a sham document and had number been acted upon.
168 of 1987 in the said Court.
The sale deed was executed for a companysideration of Rs.
96/88 Sadasivam was also an appellant.
1994 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in A.S. No.
The father of the appellant Sadasivam was one Marappa Gounder.
N. Ray, J. Leave granted.
No evidence was led to establish that he had to incur debts for maintenance of family.
The evidence on record indicates that Karuppanna and Marappa had good terms.
The sale deed and both the pronotes were produced by Marappa.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The said suit before the learned Subordinate Munsif was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and was numbered as O.S. No.
149/1 on an allegation that the respondent had been attempting to encroach on the said property unlawfully.
The said Marappa Gounder filed a suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal being O.S. No.
1508 of 1988 arose out of O.S. No.
These appeals are directed against judgment dated December 1.
The said Marappa also filed another suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal being O.S. No.
Transferred A.S. No.
5,000.
96 of 1988 arose out of O.S. No.
The disputed sale deed was executed in 1984.
The joint family owned and possessed various properties out of which shortly before his death in January 1979, Karuppanna bequeathed his half share in the joint family properties by executing a will in favour of Doraisamy.
Hence, the finding made by the High Court that the sale deed executed by Marappa in favour of Doraisamy was a genuine document should number be accepted as a proper finding of fact on companysideration of relevant materials.
1507 of 1988 arose out of O.S. No.
While the two suits were pending, the respondent Doraisamy also filed a suit being O.S. No.
1508 of 1988.
