On 6.11.1981, the first applicant sent a letter recommended to defendants 1 and 2, expressing his willingness to acquire the property in question and requesting the execution of the deed of sale by defendants 1 and 2, which was followed on 16.11.1981 by counsel`s communication. In the meantime, the first applicant stated that defendants 1 and 2 had fraudulently transferred the property in favour of defendant 3 and 5, namely R. Perumal and R. Vijayalakshmi, in consultation with the first applicant. The accused 2 to 5 attempted to disrupt the possession and enjoyment of the second object of the property. Therefore, the appeal for exemption from the specific benefit has been introduced. Through a registered mail, they can complain at the local police station, where the property is located, CC to SP. In addition, appendix, copy of the original deed of sale and other documents, acquired by the property of the mother. On the other hand, the HC relied exclusively on expertise and dismissed the complaint, finding that the signature of the first accused of the purchase agreement (Ext.
1-A) was false. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 made a written statement arguing that Ponnuswamy Nadar is a real estate agent and speculator and is a neighbour of the defendant, and he is also aware of the sale agreement that defendants 1 and 2 entered into with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979. Subsequently, the first applicant entered into the sale agreement in his favour, as if the defendants were willing to sell the property to him in court and, therefore, the agreement provided by the first applicant for the introduction of the application for the special benefit was that the defendants 1 and 2 had entered into a sale agreement with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979. , which was before and was therefore earlier and, therefore, the first applicant cannot assert a right, even under the sale agreement. Hello, you must first save FIR at 420,467,468,471 CPI .. In addition, a civil action for permanent insanity and a stay order were received by the court to limit the false deed of sale As there was no response to the notification, the fourth defendant filed the 1981 O.S.n.582 claim for a defined benefit. In this appeal, the I. A.No.794 of 1981 was brought in and this was granted, which would also prove that the fourth defendant was in possession of the title of appeal.