SADASIVAM Vs. K DORAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. These appeals are directed against judgment dated December 1, 1994 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in A. S. No. 96 of 1988 and Transferred A. S. No. 1507 of 1988 and Transferred A. S. No. 1508 of 1988. Transferred Appeal No. 1507 of 1988 arose out of O. S. No. 187 of 1985, in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. Transferred A. S. No. 1508 of 1988, arose out of O. S. No. 168 of 1987 in the said Court. A. S. No. 96 of 1988, arose out of O. S. No. 274 of 1985, in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge. Namakkal. The father of the appellant Sadasivam was one Marappa Gounder. The said Marappa Gounder filed a suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, a Namakkal being O. S. No. 187 of 1985, for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the said Marappa in favour of the respondent-Doriasamy was a sham document and had not been acted upon. The said Marappa also filed another suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal being O. S. No. 781 of 1985, for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent- Dorasamy from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit properties being Survey No. 149/1 on an allegation that the respondent had been attempting to encroach on the said property unlawfully. The said suit before the learned Subordinate Munsif was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and was numbered as O. S. No. 168/87. While the two suits were pending, the respondent Doraisamy also filed a suit being O. S. No. 274/85, in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal inter alia for a declaration of half share in the joint properties by Karuppanna Gounder the father of Marappa since bequeathed to the said Doraisamy by a will dated January 17, 1979, executed by the said Karuppanna Gounder.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, dismissed the suits filed by Marappa but decreed the suit filed by the respondent Doraisamy inter alia on the finding that the sale-deed executed by Marappa in favour of Doraisamy converying his share in the joint family properties was not a sham document but a valid document and the will executed by Karuppanna bequeathings his half share in the joint family properties in favour of the respondent Doraisamy was also a genuine will thereby conveying the interest of Karuppanna in favour of the said Doraisamy.