780 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
780 of 2006 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein at the admission stage.
The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the original suit The trial Court, after hearing the suit at length, dismissed the same, vide judgment dated 28.09.2004 while holding, inter alia, that the plaint is the creature of the Defendant No.
1 and 2 were leased out to Respondent Nos.
1 and the plaintiffs, who being the puppets in the hands of Defendant No.
2 to 4 herein during the lifetime of the mother of the appellants herein.
1 2 and dwelling house Item No.
2 to 4 to deliver the vacant possession of Item Nos.1 and 2.
During the lease period, the mother of the appellants died.
Sundari died on 22.07.1989 whereas Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.19 172640 IST Reason Respondent No.
1 and 2 and building site with companystructed building Item No.
Late T.G. Basuvan left three properties companysisting of agriculture land Item Nos.
Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 18.09.2006, dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself.
1 and 2 having been legally sold to Respondent Nos.
Being dissatisfied, the appellants took the matter before the District Judge, Udhagamandalam.
202 of 2003 praying, inter alia, for the partition and separate possession of the suit properties which companysisted of three items, namely, agriculture land Item Nos.
1 and lessees subsequent buyers as Defendant Nos.
On the expiry of said lease deed, the appellants herein through legal numberice approached the Respondent Nos.
3 and arrayed the brother as Defendant No.
3 Later on, due to the irresponsible behaviour of Respondent No.
Being aggrieved, the appellants instituted a suit being O.S. No.
1, are number entitled to any partition.
2 and 3 and that during the lifetime of their mother, the suit properties remained un partitioned and that the properties at Item Nos.
In reply, it has been stated that the lands were sold to them by Defendant No.
1 is the brother of the appellants herein.
1 had never been a drunkard and the appellants made such allegations in order to defeat the sale made in favour of Respondent Nos.
Feeling aggrieved with the decision, the appellants herein preferred a Second Appeal being No.
Consequently, this appeal has been filed before this Court by way of special leave.
2 to 4.
K.Agrawal, J. This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No.
1, suit properties at Item Nos.
Brief facts The case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is that the appellants herein are the daughters of Late Shri T.G. Basuvan died on Signature Not Verified 29.12.1979 and Late Smt.
