- (1.) This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003, in A.S.No.18 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the decree and judgment dated 27.10.1998 in O.S.No.4992 of 1993 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :- 3.1. The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction with the alternative prayer for recovery of possession. The suit property was originally purchased by the plaintiff's husband, the first defendant herein from one, Thiyagarajan by registered sale deed dated 27.08.1980. Thereafter he settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by the registered settlement deed dated 17.10.1984. The plaintiff took possession and was enjoying the suit property as absolute owner. While being so, there was misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the first defendant and as such she was driven out from the suit property. The first defendant filed petition for divorce in MOP.No.331 of 1987 on the file of the VII Assistant Civil Civil Judge, Chennai and the same was dismissed. The first defendant without knowledge of the plaintiff created fraudulent cancellation deed dated 28.09.1987, thereby cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff after came to knowledge about the same, caused public notice in tamil dailies on 10.11.1987, thereby put on notice to prospective purchaser and to general public at large to ascertain her title over the suit property. Therefore, the first defendant did not retain any right over the suit property after the settlement deed dated 17.10.1984 to alienate the same. Thereafter, the first defendant did not care to pay any maintenance as ordered by the City Civil Court in IA.No.22350 of 1987 in MOP.No.331 of 1987, the plaintiff filed execution petition in EP.No.1878 of 1988 and she was able to realise a sum of Rs.1000/- alone. As such again the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance in O.S.No.19 of 1990 on the file of the Family Court, Chennai and the same was also decreed in her favour. 3.2 Further she stated that while being so, the plaintiff came to understand that the first defendant executed sale deed in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property by the registered sale deed dated 01.11.1989. In fact, the said sale deed was executed by the first defendant as though the plaintiff has also joined with him in the said conveyance. The plaintiff was impersonated in the said transaction and the first defendant committed very serious offence of forgery and impersonation. In fact, the first defendant categorically stated in the divorce petition that the plaintiff deserted the first defendant on 31.10.1985 itself and as such there is absolutely no possibility for the plaintiff to join with the first defendant in conveying the suit property in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff was impersonated and her signature was forged by the first defendant and executed sale deed in favour of the second defendant and as such the sale deed itself is void ab initio and it is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is having absolute right, title, interest over the suit property and also prayed for permanent injunction with alternative prayer of recovery of possession.;