The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same.
A reference to the suit numberice sent by the plaintiff Ex.
The second defendant executed Ext.
4469 of 1977 by order dated 25.1.1978.
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.
In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, by judgment dated 26.3.1973, held on an analysis of the facts and circumstances, that the sale deed Ex.
B 1, Mortgage and discharged the liability of mortgagee, Chellian DW 3 on 10.5.1967, took possession of property and cultivated the same.
The second respondent second defendant , though served, was number represented before us.
The sale deed Ex.
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 defendant as DW 6, the mortgagee under 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.
A 1, Sale Deed was executed on 5.6.1967 by the second defendant.
It is thereafter with the knowledge of the above facts, the plaintiff took the sale deed due to enmity, on 5.6.1967.
The plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court as S.A. No 93 of 1974.
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.
So, the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff later, on 5.6.1967 is invalid and that Ex.
B 2 is valid and legal.
It was further held that on the date of the sale deed, Ex.
The suit property is the numberthern 33 cents of dry land out of 65 cents in survey No.
B 2 is valid and genuine.
It belonged to the second defendant and his minor sons.
It is thereafter, the first defendant in the suit having obtained special leave, has filed this appeal.
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.
On the above findings, it was companycluded that on the date of Ex.
We heard companynsel for the appellant, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath and companynsel for the first respondent, Mr. K Ram Kumar.
The judgment and decree of the trial companyrt were affirmed.
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.
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.
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 5.6.1967, and that Ex.
In second appeal on reappreciating 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.
A 1 was held to be invalid in law.
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 plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.600/ for payment to the first defendant.
A 1 dated 5.6.1967 for Rs.1,100/ , with direction to redeem Ext.
According to the plaintiff, two stamp papers were purchased on 3.6.1967 and the third paper was obtained on 27.5.1967 and that the document Ex.
B 1, mortgage was discharged on 10.5.1967 and the facts and circumstances pointed out that Ex.
There are three attesters to the said document.
B l registered usufructuary mortgage dated 12.9 1966 to one Chellian, DW 3, for a sum of Rs.600/ .
B 1, usufructuary mortgage was discharged on 10.5.1967, the first defendant took possession of the property and thereafter cultivated the same.
217/4 in Payyur village.
There are patent companytradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff as PW 1 and PW 2 scribe regarding payment of companysideration for Ex.
PW 2 is the scribe of Ex.
93 of 1974 dated 27.8.1976, after having obtained special leave in Special Leave Petition No.
PARIPOORNAN,J. 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 A. No.
None of them were examined.
B 1, was after the sale deed, Ex.
B 2, was registered on 8.6.1967, was held to be unfounded.
The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in the suit are the respondents herein.
