(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, praying for judgment and decree as follows:

                   (a) to declare the Settlement Deed dated 21.04.2014 registered as Document No.1498 of 2014 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mylapore, executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant, relating to the suit property, as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs;

                   (b) to declare that the sale deed dated 19.05.2015, registered as Document No.1512 of 2015 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, executed and registered by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, relating to the suit property, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs;

                   (c)to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule mentioned property and consequentially direct the third defendant to deliver possession of the suit schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs;

                   (d)for a permanent injunction restraining the third defendant, his men, agents, servants or anybody claiming either under or through him in any manner alienating, encumbering or dealing with the suit schedule mentioned property;

                   (e)for a mandatory direction, directing the third defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule mentioned property from 19.05.2015 to till the date of filing the plaint (at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month).

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration to declare the settlement deed, dated 21.04.2014 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Mylapore, executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and the sale deed, dated 19.05.2015 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Mylapore, executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, are null and void; to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequently to direct the third defendant to deliver the possession of the suit schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff; for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from alienating the properties; also for mandatory injunction, directing the third defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property from 19.05.2015 to till the date of filing the plaint @ Rs.15,000/- per month and also for future periods, and for costs of the suit.

2. The gist of the plaint averments, is as follows:

                   (i) The suit property originally belonged to one Rajalingam, son of G.Ramasamy, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of second plaintiff through sale deed, dated 23.11.1998. The said Rajalingam died on 20.04.2008 leaving behind him his wife Mrs.R.Revathi (first plaintiff) and his daughter Mrs.R.Keerthana (second plaintiff) and his mother R.Anna Muthu as his legal heirs to succeed his Estate. The mother-in-law of the first plaintiff, namely Anna Muthu, died on 28.07.2013 and during her life-time, she executed a Will, bequeathing the suit schedule mentioned property and other properties to her son Late Rajalingam, However, subsequently during her life-time, she executed a settlement deed, dated 29.07.2008 in favour of R.Ravindran, her grand-son.

                   (ii)Thereafter, the said Ravindran filed a suit before this Court in C.S.No.66 of 2009 for partition and separate possession of his 1/3 share over the properties therein, as against the present plaintiffs and the first defendant. Subsequently, the matter had been compromised between the parties and the first defendant herein, was given up on the ground that she has no right over the property of the said Rajalingam. As per the compromise, the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs.

                   (iii)While so, the first defendant, without any right, title or interest over the suit property, taking advantage of her possession, claiming herself to be the legal heir of the deceased Rajalingam, executed a registered settlement deed, dated 21.05.2014 in favour of her mother Mrs.V.Ramani, who is the second defendant herein. As per the above said settlement deed, the first defendant claimed that she was living with the said Late R.Rajalingam as a family and after his demise, she became the direct legal heir along with Mrs.R.Anna Muthu, for which, she had also attached a fraudulent legal heirship certificate obtained from the Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, showing the first defendant and the said R.Anna Muthu as the only legal heirs. She also produced Death Certificate of the said Anna Muthu under the said deed and claimed that she is the only legal heir and they have also produced a certificate from the Police as if the original sale deed in favour of the said Late R.Rajalingam, had been misplaced, and therefore, it is not traceable. On the strength of the said fraudulent settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, a further encumbrance was created fraudulently in favour of the third defendant through sale deed, dated 19.05.2015.

                   (iv)Pursuant to the said sale deed, the third defendant was given possession as per the recitals therein. Subsequent to the compromise decree, dated 15.11.2016 in C.S.No.66 of 2009 on the file of this Court, the plaintiffs have taken various steps to recover all the properties to their possession.

                   (v)While so, in the month of January 2020, the plaintiff came to know the encumbrance over the suit properties. The deceased Rajalingam has purchased various properties in the course of his business during his life-time.

                   (vi)Taking advantage of the plaintiff’s absence in Chennai, the first defendant fraudulently created bogus legal heirship certificate and also effected paper publication, as if the original title deed has been misplaced and also obtained non-traceable certificate and created settlement deed and also sale deed.

                   (vii)Therefore, there was a threat to the title of the plaintiff by means of the fraudulent documents and hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the prayers mentioned supra.

3. The summary of the averments made in the written statement filed by the third defendant, is as follows:

                   3.1. The suit is false and is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averments made in the plaint, are false. The deceased R.Rajalingam was ordinarily residing in T.Nagar, Chennai and his Death Certificate was issued by the Chennai Corporation and the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, has issued the legal heirship certificate stating that Mrs.Anitha Sharmila and Mrs.Anna Muthu are the legal heirs of the deceased R.Rajalingam and the said Mrs.Anna Muthu died on 28.07.2013. The legal heirs of the deceased Mrs.Anitha Sharmila executed settlement deed, dated 21.05.2014 in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant. The second defendant in turn, sold the property in favour of the third defendant through sale deed, dated 19.05.2015 and the third defendant is the bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration.

                   3.2. The legal heirship certificate was obtained by the plaintiff from Tanjore, whereas the deceased died in Chennai, and therefore, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 committed fraud on the third defendant. The third defendant purchased the property in the year 2015 and the present suit has been filed in the year 2021, i.e. after a long period of time.

                   3.3. Already, a civil suit in O.S.No.66 of 2009 was filed, where the first defendant herein is the third defendant in the said suit and she was given up and the same shows that fraud was committed by the plaintiff in the said suit.

                   3.4. The value of the property is only Rs.40 lakhs and thereby, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above-said pleadings and after hearing both sides, this Court framed the following issues on 11.08.2022:

                   (i)Whether the settlement deed dated 21.04.2014 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, is valid?

                   (ii)Whether the sale deed dated 19.05.2015 executed by the second defendant in favour of third defendant is valid?

                   (iii)Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and are entitled for recovery of possession from the 3rd defendant?

                   (iv)Whether the suit schedule properties were allotted to the plaintiffs as per the final decree passed in C.S.No.66 of 2009?

                   (v)Whether the suit is properly valued?

                   (vi)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from encumbering the suit property?

                   (vii)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages from the third defendant for use and occupation of the suit property? And

                   (viii)To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled to?

5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D.4 were marked.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the property originally belonged to Rajalingam, who had purchased the property through sale deed, dated 23.11.1998. The said Rajalingam died on 20.04.2008 leaving behind his wife and daughter as the first and second plaintiffs and his mother R.Anna Muthu. The mother-in-law of the first plaintiff, who is the grand-mother of the second plaintiff, died on 28.07.2013

                   6.1.Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further contended that the first defendant is no way connected with the said Rajalingam and the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of the said Rajalingam and the second defendant was born to the said Rajalingam through the first plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Anna Muthu alone are entitled to share over the properties of Rajalingam. The said Anna Muthu, i.e. the mother-in-law of the first plaintiff, died on 28.07.2013 and she had executed a settlement deed, dated 29.07.2008 in respect of her share over the suit property in favour of one Ravindran, who is the grand-son through her another son, namely Ramakrishnan. Thereafter, the said Ravindran filed a suit in C.S.No.66 of 2009 before this Court claiming partition of the properties, in which the plaintiffs have been cited as defendants 1 and 2 and the first defendant was cited as third defendant, and thereafter, the matter had been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise decree has been passed in the suit and the first defendant herein is the third defendant in the said suit, was given up and as per the compromise decree, the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs and the said compromise decree was passed by this Court on 15.11.2016.

                   6.2.It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the present suit, the first defendant herein had created bogus legal heirship certificate and executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant, who is none other than the mother of the first defendant and in turn, the second defendant had sold the property to the third defendant through sale deed, dated 19.05.2015. In the said sale deed, the legal heirship certificate of the deceased Rajalingam, had been forged and the date of death of Anna Muthu is 28.07.2013, whereas the legal heirship certificate of the said Rajalingam, was obtained on 11.11.2013 by showing the name of Anna Muthu as one of the legal heir of the deceased Rajalingam. When the said Anna Muthu died on 28.07.2013 itself, there is no question of issuing the legal heirship certificate by citing the name of Anna Muthu as one of the legal heirs of the said Rajalingam, as the same would not arise at all.

                   6.3.Therefore, according to the plaintiff, by forgery, the property was settled in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant. On the date of execution of the settlement deed, the said Anna Muthu was not alive and thereby, the share of the said Anna Muthu has to be divided between the legal heirs of Anna Muthu and the settlement deed was executed only by the first defendant who is no way connected with the said Rajalingam. In the said settlement deed, the first defendant claimed that she was the wife of the said Rajalingam and in that regard, no records have been produced by the first defendant. No legal heirship certificate in respect of Anna Muthu, had been obtained and thereby, the above said settlement deed is not valid and the third defendant, without any enquiry, purchased the property and even as per the above said sale deed, the address of the vendor, had been mentioned to be residing at Alwarpet, Chennai and her I.D. proof shows that she was residing in the Third Street Tambaram. Therefore, the defendants have created forged documents and thereby, cheated the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and they are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajalingam, and therefore, they have filed the present suit for the reliefs stated supra.

                   6.4.The defendants 1 and 2 have not appeared and they were set ex-parte by this Court on 21.02.2022 itself and the third defendant alone has contested the present suit, according to the third defendant he is the bona-fide purchaser but he not even verified about the legal heirs of the deceased Rajalingam and Annamuthu and also the title deeds of the properties. Without verifying the legal heirship certificate and without considering the fact that on the date of execution of the settlement deed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, the said Anna Muthu was no more and the legal heirs of the said Anna Muthu had not been enclosed in the settlement deed, and thereby, he is not the bona-fide purchaser. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked and therefore, according to the plaintiffs, they have proved their case and prayed that the suit may be decreed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the third defendant submitted that the suit property originally belonged to Rajalingam and the said Rajalingam had wife and mother and the Revenue Authority issued legal heirship certificate stating that the first defendant is the wife of Rajalingam and the said Anna Muthu is the mother of the said Rajalingam. The said Anna Muthu died on 28.07.2013 and therefore, the first defendant executed the settlement deed in favour of the second defendant, and based on the settlement deed, the second defendant sold the property to the third defendant, who purchased the property for valuable consideration and thereby, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

                   7.1.According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners of the property through compromise decree and prior to the Anna Muthu executed the settlement deed in favour of Ravichandran, the said settlement deed had not been produced and the plaintiffs have not impleaded said Ravichandran as one of the parties to the present suit. The first plaintiff/P.W.1 has admitted that she has not produced the Will and the plaintiffs have produced the settlement deed. The plaintiffs failed to prove the power deed executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the first plaintiff. The deceased Rajalingam died in Chennai, whereas the legal heirship certificate has been obtained at Tanjore. The suit is filed by Ravindran in C.S.No.66 of 2009 and Anna Muthu being the mother of Rajalingam, was not arrayed as party and on the date of filing of the sasid suit, she was alive and she died only on 28.07.2013 and therefore, the Ravindran is also necessary party to the present suit.

                   7.2.Moreover, the first defendant herein has been impleaded as the third defendant in the previous suit C.S.No. 66/2019 and thereafter, she was given-up and in her absence, the suit has been compromised between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the previous suit and therefore, the said compromise itself is invalid. The first plaintiff admitted that she is not in possession of the suit property and the third defendant purchased the property in the year 2015, but the suit has been filed only in the year 2021, and therefore, the suit is filed after the limitation period of 3 years. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and the third defendant is the bona-fide purchaser and he has also examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.D.1 to D.4, thereby he has proved his case through sufficient evidence. The third defendant, after proper enquiry, purchased the property and the first defendant is the wife of the said Rajalingam and they have lived together, and thereby, he purchased the property and therefore, the suit is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

9. Considering the nature of the issues, issue No.4 is taken for answering it first.

                   Issue No.(iv): Whether the suit schedule properties were allotted to the plaintiffs as per the final decree passed in C.S.No.66 of 2009?

                   The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and also to declare the settlement deed dated 21.05.2014 and the sale deed dated 19.05.2015 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from alienating the suit property and also for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant to pay Rs.10,80,000/- in respect of the property.

10. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property belonged to her husband, namely Rajalingam through sale deed, dated 23.11.1998. The defendants also have not denied the sale deed in the name of Rajalingam, and there is no dispute that the said Rajalingam died on 20.04.2008. According to the plaintiffs the first plaintiff is wife and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the said Rajalingam. According to the 3rd defendant the 1st defendant is the wife of Rajalingam. The first defendant also claimed that she is the wife of Rajalingam. The plaintiff has produced the legal heirship certificate from the Tahsildar at Tanjore stating that the plaintiff and Anna Muthu are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajalingam. The defendants have not produced any document to prove that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajalingam. The first and second defendants have not appeared before this Court and this Court set them ex-parte on 21.02.2022. The first plaintiff has claimed that she is the wife of the deceased Rajalingam. She is also relying upon Ex.P.4 legal heirship certificate, which is issued by the Tanjore Taluk Office.

11. On a careful perusal of Ex.P-6, which is the certified copy of the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, wherein, the Death Certificate of Anna Muthu and Rajalingam, and legal heirship certificate of the said Rajalingam have been enclosed. The legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, revealed that the said Rajalingam had wife Anitha sharmila and mother Anna Muthu and no other issues, where as Ex.P4 Legal heir certificate issued by Tanjavur Tahsildar shows that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Annamuthu are the legal heirs of Rajalingam. There is no dispute that the deceased Rajalingam died on 20.04.2008 at Koyambedu, Chennai. While so, the plaintiff obtained certificate from Tanjore and the first defendant has obtained legal heirship certificate from Mylapore-Triplicane Tahsildar. Apart from those records, no other records are produced by the parties to prove their respective status.

12. The plaintiff has also produced Ex.P-8 certified copy of the final decree passed by this Court in C.S.No.66 of 2009 on 15.11.2016, wherein, this Court passed final decree by allotting the suit property and other items in favour of the plaintiffs, where the father’s name of the second plaintiff has been mentioned as Rajalingam but the husband name of the 1st plaintiff has not been mentioned. The properties of Rajalingam and his family properties were partitioned between the plaintiffs and one Ravindran, wherein the suit property and other properties have been allotted to the plaintiffs and the properties in other Districts and along with it, one property in Chennai had been allotted to Ravindran. In the decree of this Court marked as Ex.P-8, there is no mention about the husband’s name of the first plaintiff as Rajalingam. In the same Ex.P-8, while describing the address of the third defendant, in that suit and who is the first defendant in the present suit, the father’s name of the third defendant in C.S.No.66 of 2009, is only mentioned as Vikraman, however, she was given up in the said suit.

13. Therefore, there are no records to show that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajalingam. As per Ex.P-2, the address of the deceased Rajalingam was mentioned as the permanent address T.Puduppatti Post, Kannivadi via, Dindugal District and presently residing at No.3, H.D.Raja Street, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. In Ex.P-8 also, the address of the plaintiff, namely Ravindran was marked as Vayakattu Thottam, T.P.Puduppatti post, Kannivadi, Dindugal District. The properties are also mentioned as at Dindugal District, Chengalpet District, Chennai District, etc. In the said suit, the prayer sought for is to divide the suit property therein into 1/3rd share and there is no mention about the origin of the properties and as to how they are entitled to 1/3 share over the properties.

14. On a perusal of Ex.P.4, legal heirship certificate of Rajalingam, it shows that it was obtained from Tahsildar at Tanjore. There are no records to show as to how the Tahsildar at Tanjore had issued that certificate, when the permanent address of the deceased Rajalingam was mentioned as T.P.Puduppatti Post, Kannivadi at Dindugal District. Therefore, there are no records to show that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajalingam. Though the plaintiff has mentioned in the plaint and the proof affidavit that she is the wife of the deceased Rajalingam, either in the plaint or in the proof affidavit, there is no mention about their marriage and no where it is stated about the date of marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Rajalingam. When once there is dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant in respect of the status as to who is the wife of the deceased Rajalingam, it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajalingam. Even as per Ex.P-8, the first defendant herein was shown as the third defendant and there is no explanation as to why she was included as a defendant in the present suit. Thereafter, she was given up and without her presence, the compromise was recorded between the parties. The plaintiff has not produced the entire plaint and the written statement to show as to how the properties were acquired by them and how the separate property of Rajalingam was included in the previous suit, as the family properties and the same have to be explained by the plaintiffs herein and there is no explanation at all for the same, and therefore, the main dispute itself has not been proved by the plaintiffs to show that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Rajalingam. In the absence of any proof, this Court cannot hold that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of the said Rajalingam.

15. When the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration in respect of the properties which were already alienated by showing the first defendant as the wife of the Rajalingam, the plaintiff ought to have mentioned about the date of marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Rajalingam and produce document to show that she is the legally wedded wife of the Rajalingam. Even though the defendants 1 and 2 in the present suit, have not appeared before this Court and they were set ex-parte, and when once the property was sold/alienated by the first defendant alleging that she is the wife of the said Rajalingam, the plaintiffs have to prove that the first plaintiff herein is the legally wedded wife of the said R.Rajalingam, but she has not proved the same. Even as per Ex.P-8 (decree of this Court in C.S.No.66 of 2009), there is no reference about the nature of the properties and as to who are all the share holders. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Rajalingam is the son of Anna Muthu, and she died on 28.07.2013. Therefore, on the date of filing of the previous suit, Anna Muthu was also having share over the properties of her husband and son in respect of the family properties, but she was not arrayed as a party in the previous suit. However, on a perusal of Ex.P-8, it is clear that the suit property and other two properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein and the remaining properties were allotted to Ravindran. There is no reference in Ex.P-8 about as to who was Ravindran and in what way he was related to the plaintiffs herein in respect of the suit property, when the prayer itself is for partition in respect of the 1/3 share of the plaintiffs in the said suit, and how the properties were only shared between two parties, had to be explained by the plaintiffs. There is no proper explanation in that regard. There is not even reference in Ex.P-8 to show as to the nature of the properties mentioned in the schedule therein and it is not the case of the plaintiffs herein that the entire properties mentioned in Ex.P-8 belonged to the husband of the first plaintiff, namely Rajalingam.

16. According to the plaintiffs, the said Ravindran is the brother’s son of the deceased Rajalingam and there are no-any records to show that Rajalingam has one brother, namely Ramakrishnan. Even assuming that the properties belonged to Ramakrishnan and Rajalingam, there are no records to show as to who are all the legal heirs of Ramakrishnan and as to how the properties purchased by Rajalingam, were included in the previous partition suit and as to why the properties purchased by Rajalingam had been included in the earlier suit and the same has to be explained by the plaintiffs. Even assuming that the properties mentioned in Ex.P-8, are family properties, the mother of Rajalingam and the said Ramakrishnan, are also proper and necessary parties to the earlier suit in C.S.No.66 of 2009, but they were not made as parties in that suit. The plaintiffs who had filed the suit in Ex.P-8 (relating to C.S.No.66 of 2009), it included the first defendant herein as the third defendant in the previous suit in C.S.No.66 of 2009, and thereafter, she was given up, and therefore, reasonable doubt arises about the genuineness of Ex.P-8 (being the decree of this Court in C.S.No.66 of 2009, dated 15.11.2016).

17. Therefore, based on the above-said Ex.P-8 and without producing the plaint, written statement and other documents filed in the previous suit in C.S.No.66 of 2009, merely based on Ex.P-8, it cannot be said that the properties were allotted to the plaintiffs herein through final decree passed in C.S.No.67 of 2009. This issue No.(iv) is answered accordingly.

18. Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and are entitled for recovery of possession from the third defendant?

The plaintiffs have filed the present suit with one of the prayers to declare the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and according to them, the suit schedule property was allotted through partition in C.S.No.67 of 2009 and they have also produced Ex.P-8, and this Court, in the previous issue, decided that, mere production of Ex.P-8 alone is not sufficient to hold that the properties belong absolutely to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ claim in the present suit, is based on the sale deed executed in favour of the said Rajalingam and when once the suit property is a self-acquired property of the said Rajalingam, as to how the plaintiff (R.Ravindran) in C.S.No.67 of 2009 is relevant for the separate property of Rajalingam, which has to be explained and it is not known as to why he included the property and under which status the third defendant has been included in the suit in C.S.No.67 of 2009 and why she was given up and as to why, in her absence, the matter has been compromised between the parties, and the same had to be explained by the plaintiff.

19. It is an admitted fact that the date of compromise decree, is 15.11.2016 and on the date of the said final decree in C.S.No.66 of 2009, the present suit property was sold to the third defendant on 19.05.2015. Prior to that, the settlement deed dated 21.05.2014 was also executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. Though the settlement deed, dated 21.05.2014 and the sale deed, dated 19.05.2015, are executed during the pendency of the present suit and the first defendant herein, who is the third defendant in the said suit in C.S.No.66 of 2009, was given up, thereby, the said decree will not bind upon the first defendant.

20. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to the suit property through her husband Rajalingam, who purchased the property through sale deed, whereas the case of the plaintiffs is that they are entitled to the property by way of final decree in C.S.No.67 of 2009. In the absence of marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Rajalingam and without any production of the earlier plaint and written statement in C.S.No.67 of 2009, after impleading the first defendant herein as third defendant in the previous suit, and after giving-up in the said suit, the decree in C.S.No.67 of 2009 will not bind upon the first defendant herein, and therefore, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that they are absolute owners of the present suit property.

21. Though the said settlement deed was executed on 21.05.2014, there is no evidence to show as to when the third defendant herein was given up and whether any notice/summons were served on the third defendant in C.S.No.67 of 2009 (first defendant in the present suit), and therefore, mere production of Ex.P-8 alone is not sufficient to declare the ownership of the properties and it is an admitted fact that now the suit property is under the possession and enjoyment of the third defendant, who has purchased the suit property. Without proving the title of the plaintiffs over the present suit property, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get recovery of possession from the third defendant herein.

22. At this juncture, learned counsel for the plaintiffs brought to the notice of the Court that as per Ex.P-6 legal heirship certificate, issued in the name of the first defendant and Anna Muthu and the said certificate was issued on 11.11.2013, whereas Anna Muthu died on 28.07.2013 itself, which is also enclosed in Ex.P-6. Therefore, the legal heirship certificate has been created for the purpose of execution of the settlement deed. This Court also perused Ex.P-6, wherein the Death Certificate of Rajalingam and Anna Muthu, along with the legal heirship certificate of Rajalingam, have been enclosed. On a perusal of the Death Certificate of Anna Muthu, it revealed that she died on 28.07.2013, whereas the legal heirship certificate was issued on 11.11.2013 in respect of Rajalingam and in the said legal heirship certificate, the name of Anna Muthu has also been mentioned as if she is alive. However, the plaintiffs have also obtained legal heirship certificate in the name of the present plaintiffs and Anna Muthu from the Tahsildar at Tanjore, but there is no explanation as to how the deceased Rajalingam is related to Tanjore District. Further, there are no records to show that the deceased Rajalingam was connected to Tanjore District.

23. Even according to Ex.P-1, the address of the plaintiffs had been mentioned as No.1, Ashok Nagar, 12th Avenue, Second Floor, Chennai, but no where they have stated about the address of the Tanjore (Thanjavur). Even as per Ex.P-3, permanent residence of the deceased R.Rajalingam, is mentioned as No.33, Bhagirathi Ammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Moreover, there are no records to show that the deceased was related to Tanjore (Thanjavur). Therefore, mere production of the legal heirship certificate alone, is not sufficient to prove the address of the said Rajalingam as at Tanjore. Though in the legal heirship certificate Ex.P-4, it has been mentioned that the deceased was permanently residing in No.20, Indira Nagar, Neelagiri South Garden Village, Tanjore, no records to show how the Rajalingam is related to Tanjore Taluk. whereas, from Ex.P-2 sale deed, it reveals that the permanent address of the deceased Rajalakshmi was Kannivadi of Dindugal District.

24. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the 1st plaintiff is legally wedded wife of Rajalingam and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajalingam. Even according to the plaintiffs, as per the pleadings, the said Anna Muthu, after demise of her son Rajalingam, had executed a Will and also the settlement deed, dated 29.07.2008, but the said settlement deed has not been produced before this Court. Similarly, the Will is also not produced and there is no mention even about the date of the Will and for which properties, the Will and settlement deed were executed. When once the settlement deed was stated to have been executed on 29.07.2008, then as to how the said property was included in Ex.P-8, also creates a doubt over the genuineness of the case of the plaintiff.

25. The first defendant also has not claimed any right over the properties of the deceased Rajalingam. Had the first defendant been the legally wedded wife of the said Rajalinram, she ought to have taken steps with regard to the properties of the deceased Rajalingam, but she only settled the suit property in favour of the second defendant, who is her mother and in turn, the second defendant sold the property to the third defendant. However, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration, and therefore, the plaintiffs have to prove their case by adducing sufficient evidence. There is no sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property. The issue No.(iii) is answered accordingly.

26. Issue No.(i): Whether the settlement deed dated 21.04.2014 executed by the first defendant, is valid?

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration in respect of the suit property and the earlier issues framed in this suit, have been decided against the plaintiffs. Though the first defendant executed the settlement deed, dated 21.04.2014 in favour of the second defendant, in respect of the present suit property, on the date of execution of settlement deed, the plaintiffs are not absolute owners of the properties as they are claiming the suit properties through compromise decree dated 15.11.2016, and the date of settlement deed is 21.05.2014. The present suit has been filed in the year 2021 and the first defendant claims that she is the wife of Rajalingam. However, she did not contest the suit. The first plaintiff has also claimed that she is the wife of Rajalingam and the second plaintiff is the daughter of Rajalingam. There are no records produced by the plaintiffs to show that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajalingam, except by producing the legal heirship certificate, which itself is doubtful, since it was obtained from the Tahsildar at Tanjore District, whereas the permanent residence of the deceased was mentioned to be at Dindugal District. Therefore, without proving the legal status, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief in respect of the settlement deed.

27. Further, since the settlement deed dated 21.05.2014 was acted upon and thereafter, pursuant to the said settlement deed, a Will was executed and hence, the Court need not declare the settlement deed as null and void.. Issue No.(i) is answered in the above terms.

28. Issue No.(ii): Whether the sale deed dated 19.05.2015 executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, is valid ?

It is an admitted fact that the second defendant, pursuant to the settlement deed in her favour executed by the first defendant, sold the property to the third defendant through sale deed, dated 19.05.2015, the plaintiffs have also sought for the relief of declaration in respect of the sale deed. The plaintiffs’ claim is that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and they are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajalingam. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajalingam. The sale deed was executed on 19.05.2015, but the present suit has been filed only in the year 2021. Without proving the fact that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of Rajalingam and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the said Rajalingam, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the declaratory relief in respect of the settlement deed and the sale deed in respect of the properties of Rajalingam.

29. This Court also in the previous issue decided that the decree passed in C.S.No.67 of 2009 itself, has not been proved with sufficient documents. The plaintiffs have not even produced the plaint and the written statement filed in C.S.No.67 of 2009 and not even stated about the date of marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Rajalingam and not produced any kind of such documents, which by itself, is not appropriate to accept the case of the plaintiffs, thereby, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief. This issue No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

30. Issue No.6: CS No. 243 of 2021 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from encumbering the suit property?

The plaintiffs in this suit, have sought for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from encumbering the suit property. Since this Court in the previous issue, decided that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession, and the plaintiffs are also not also entitled for declaration in respect of the settlement deed as well as the sale deed, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from encumbering the suit property.

31. Issue No.7: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages from the third defendant for the use and occupation of the suit property?

The plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and the 3rd defendant had purchased the property through the sale deed, dated 19.05.2015 and this Court also declined to grant declaration in respect of the sale deed and the third defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property, pursuant to the sale deed, dated 19.05.2015. The plaintiffs are said to have obtained the decree in C.S.No.66 of 2009 only in the year 2016, but the sale deed was dated 19.05.2015. Further the plaintiffs have not taken any steps for recovery of possession and on the date of the decree in C.S.No.67 of 2009, the third defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, without taking immediate steps, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit only belatedly, thereby, the plaintiffs are also not entitled to the relief of damages from the third defendant.

32. Issue No.5:- Whether the suit is properly valued?

The plaintiffs have valued the plaint/suit under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, read with Appendix-I of the said Act for the reliefs in respect of the sale deed and the settlement deed, and as far as the reliefs in respect of the declaration and recovery of possession, are concerned, they have valued the plaint at Rs.1,01,10,000/-and paid necessary Court fee thereon under Section 25(a) of the said Act. Further, they have valued the suit for permanent injunction under Section 27(c) of the said Act.

33. Furthermore, for the relief of mandatory injunction, directing the third defendant to pay Rs.10,80,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the suit property, is concerned, they have paid the Court fee under Section 22 of the said Act.

34. The plaintiffs, having valued the suit on the aggregate value of the relief as per Section 6(1) of the said Court fee Act, have filed the suit by properly valuing the suit claim. This issue No.(v) is answered accordingly.

35. Issue No.8: To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to?

In view of the discussion made above for issue Nos.1 to 7, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the suit and the present suit is liable to be dismissed.

36. In the result, the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.