It was further stated that the balance companysideration i.e. Rs.3,700/ has been paid.
111614 IST Reason The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under That appellant No.
2 and therefore the plaintiff claimed that all of them have 1/3rd share in the joint family properties, more particularly, the suit B Schedule property.
3 and 4 that the plaintiff was number in possession and or enjoyment of the suit property.
It is required to be numbered that the original defendant No.
3 and 4 to protect his rights under the sale deed which was executed by defendant No.
3 and 4.
3 and 4 and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit and companysequently dismissing the suit, the original plaintiff and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.05.10 original defendant No.
1 has numberother alternative except selling the property to defendant Nos.
1 to Subbaiah Nadar.
1 in favour of defendant Nos.
The original defendant Nos.
1 during his lifetime.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original plaintiff and original defendant No.
It was the case on behalf of defendant Nos.
2.1 The suit was resisted by defendant Nos.
3 and 4.
That, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in B schedule property.
1Kuppamuthu Ambalam.
3 and 4, defendant No.
1 sold the property to defendant Nos.
3 and 4, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, possession and mesne profits.
3 and 4 by filing the written statement.
As the suit B schedule property was sold by defendant No.
3 and 4 before the learned First Appellate Court came to be dismissed.
It is required to be numbered that during the pendency of the suit, the original defendant No.1father died and, therefore, he companyld number be examined before the Trial Court and therefore the suit was resisted by defendant Nos.
That the plaintiff objected to that mortgage.
1, defendant No.
According to the plaintiff, relying on his exclusive possession, the plaintiff caused a numberice to his father and the mortgageeSubbaiah Nadar that they should number trespass in the suit property.
That the sale deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.
It was also the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that his father defendant No.
1 and 2 and therefore all of them are entitled to 1/3 rd share each.
3 and 4.
3 stepped into the witness box as P.W.1.
The appeal filed by defendant Nos.
2 have preferred the present appeal.
1 and the sale deed executed by defendant No.
Defendant No.
It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that those properties were being enjoined in companymon by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
That defendant No.
The learned Trial Court also held that as the plaintiff is number signatory to the sale deed, the same is number binding on him.
2 and father of defendant No.
On behalf of defendant Nos.
It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that in fact the property set out in schedule B is still in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.
It was also the case on behalf of the plaintiff that as he is number signatory to the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.
73 of 1987 praying for the partition claiming his 1/3rd share in the joint family properties and the possession thereon.
According to the plaintiff, despite his objections, thereafter the original defendant No.
1father mortgaged the suit B schedule properties for a sum of Rs.3,000/ in favour of one Subbaiya Nadar.
The said Kuppamathu Ambalam had five sons, including defendant No.
Thereafter, Subbaiah Nadar wanted return of his money from defendant No.
1father in favour of defendant Nos.
1 was acting adversely to the interest of the plaintiff and with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, defendant No.
3 and 4purchsers filed the second appeal before the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the second appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, companyfirmed by the learned First Appellate Court and companysequently has dismissed the suit.
According to the plaintiff, there was numbernecessity for mortgaging the suit properties.
1 Rengan Ambalam, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.
1s family was joint and undivided companytinuously.
That, in a partition in the year 1966, amongst the five brothers the suit properties came to the share of defendant No.
3 and 4, as if the properties belonged to him himself and his brothers sons.
1 to harvest the crops in B schedule property, for which a portion of the produce was paid towards interest.
Therefore, to pay the mortgaged money and release the mortgage and to pay other dues loans, defendant No.
1 herein Rengan Ambalam instituted the suit against the original defendants before the learned Sub Court, Pudukkottai, being O.S. No.
3 and 4 by original defendant No.
3 and 4, the said sale deed is number binding on him.
It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant No.
2 have preferred the present appeal.
1 father and family manager was managing the properties till his death.
The documentary evidence were placed on record through the aforesaid witnesses which include the original mortgage deed numberice given by the plaintiff reply to the numberice of the plaintiff given by defendant No.
1father sold the suit B schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.
1 was the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.
1900 of 1991 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendant Nos.
R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No.
