93 of 1974 dated 27.8.1976, after having obtained special leave in Special Leave Petition No.
The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in the suit are the respondents herein.
A reference to the suit numberice sent by the plaintiff Ex.
It belonged to the second defendant and his minor sons.
It was further held that on the date of the sale deed, Ex.
The document in his favour dated 5.5.1967 is genuine and earlier in point of time and companyveyed valid title to the suit property.
First defendant obtained Ex.
A 1 dated 5.6.1967 for Rs.
It is thereafter, the first defendant in the suit having obtained special leave, has filed this appeal.
B 1, DW 3 and DW 4 one Naidu and DW 5 scribe independent witnesses, positively point out that liability as per Ex.
On the other hand, the evidence of 1st defendants as DW 6, the mortgagee under Ex.
A learned single judge of the Madras High Court, on reappreciating the entire evidence held, that the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.
1,100, with direction to redeem Ext.
The judgment and decree of the trial companyrt were affirmed.
B 1, Mortgage and discharged the liability of mortgagee, Chellian DW 3 on 10.5.1967, took possession of property and cultivated the same.
B 2 is valid and genuine.
The plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court as S.A. No.
B 2, sale deed was genuine and was executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant on 5.5.1967 which is earlier in point of time.
So, the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff later, on 5.6.1967 is invalid and that Ex.
The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same.
B 1, mortgage was discharged on 10.5.1967 and the facts and circumstances pointed out that Ex.
B 2, was executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant on 5.5.1967, which is earlier in point of time to the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 5.5.1967, and that Ex.
According to the plaintiff, two stamp papers were purchased on 3.6.1967 and that the third paper was obtained on 27.5.1967 and that the document Ex.
217/4 in Payyur village.
The sale deed Ex.
B 2, was registered on 8.6.1967, was held to be unfounded.
600 for payment to the first defendant.
A 1 was held to be invalid in law.
B 1 registered usufructuary mortgage dated 12.9.1966 to one Chellian, DW 3, for a sum of Rs.
In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned Sub ordinate judge, Cuddalore, by judgment dated 26.3.1973, held on an analysis of the facts and circumstances, that the sale deed Ex.
A 1, in favour of the plaintiff, the second defendant had numbersubsisting title to the suit property and the plaintiff did number acquire valid title to the suit property.
93 of 1974.
The case put forward by the plaintiff was that the suit property belonged to the second defendant, and he subsequently sold the suit property to him by sale deed Ext.
In these circumstances, first defendant has numbertitle.
We heard companynsel for the appellant, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath and companynsel for the first respondent, Mr. K. Ram Kumar.
The trial companyrt as well as the lower appellate companyrt believed the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses DW 3 to DW 6 and held that the Ex.
The trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt scanned the entire documentary and oral evidence including the different dates on which the stamp papers were purchased by the parties, and entered the following findings.
The second respondent second defendant , though served, was number represented before us.
The second defendant executed Ext.
There are patent companytradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff as PW 1 and PW 2 scribe regarding payment of companysideration for Ex.
It is thereafter with the knowledge of the above facts, the plaintiff took the sale deed due to enmity, on 5.6.1967.
The first defendant in O.S. 329 of 1967, Munsiff Court, Thirukoilur, has filed this appeal against the judgment of a learned single judge of the Madras High Court rendered in S.A. No.
B 1, usufructuary mortgage was discharged on 10.5.1967.
In second appeal on re appreciating the entire evidence in the case, the learned single judge of the High Court faulted the judgments of the companyrts below to the following effect.
None of them were examined.
The suit property is the numberthern 33 cents of dry land out of 65 cents in survey No.
There are three attestors to the said document.
A 1, Sale Deed was executed on 5.6.1967 by the second defendant.
PW 2 is the scribe of Ex.
B 1, was after the sale deed, Ex.
The first defendant took possession of the property and thereafter cultivated the same.
4469 of 1977 by order dated 25.1.1978.
The plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
