K.Sampath, J. - (1.) The plaintiff in O S No 11 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kuzhithurai. is the appellant in the second appeal
(2.) The parties are father and son The suit was filed by the father/appellant for declaration of his title and possession and for consequential injunction His case, as set out in the plaint is as follows The plaintiff has got four sons and one daughter, the defendant/respondent being the youngest son The plaintiff is an agnculunst and a businessman He had purchased properties in the names of all his children including the respondent with his own funds The purchases were made Benami for his benefit and he is in possession of all those properties He owns lorries and cars The registration certificates in respect of the same are in his name and the other children The suit property onginally belonged to Avadappa Pillai. On his death, in a partition between his widow and his brother, it was obtained by the widow Muthammal Muthammal executed a gift deed in respect of the suit property in favour of her two sisters and a brother On 18 9 1978 Muthammal and her donees jointly sold the suit property to the plaintiff and he took possession of the same and continued to be in possession There are two buildings in the property and one is used as a store house and the other is used as a place of residence by his tapper Rusalayyan The suit property is a rub ber estate The sale deed was taken in the name of the defendant The purchase was for Rs 40,000/- At the time of negotiation the plain tiff paid Rs 5,000/- and the balance of Rs 35,000/- was paid on the date cf the sale deed The entire sale consideration proceeded from him as the defendant/respondent had no source of income The defendant is only 20 years old He was an accused in a sessions case and was on bail during the period He was then staying at Pioneer Lodge in Nagercoil He had to report twice a day at the Town Police Station, Nagercoil The plaintiff got the original sale deed and had kept it in his house They were all living together In November, 1980, the defendant got married He went for separate residence from 2 2 1981 He stealthily removed several title deeds, which he is re taming in his custody Since the defendant started asserting his title to the suit property the suit was necessitated
(3.) The defendant resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows The suit property was purchased with his own funds The plaintiff had never purchased any property as Benami The defendant was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property He was owning a lorry bearing Registration No KRT 4923 He also owned a car TNK 4109 At the time of the suit he had purchased a lorry KLV 8809 with his own funds He had studied upto 4th Form After his education he entered the services of the plaintiff as a lorry cleaner in 1971 He could not be present before the Sub-Registrar on the date of the sale deed due to the pendency of the sessions case In fact the sessions trial commenced only on 18 9 1978 The plaintiff was looking after the affairs of the defendant The defendant made suitable arrangements for the registration of the sale deed Rusalayyan was never the tapper in the suit property He was not residing in the property Lakshmana Pamcker negotiated for the purchase for the defendant only Only the plaintiff was attempting to take the suit property and the suit was liable to be dismissed;