counsel for the first defendant that the plaintiff herein has purchased the property during the pendency of the suit in TOS NO.8 of 2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant that after issuance of notice in the said testamentary suit, the property has been purchased by the plaintiff and, therefore, she is not a bona fide purchaser. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant that the plaintiff has no right over the suit property, since the settlement itself was cancelled by the settlor. Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant that as the purchase itself has been made in the month of October 2010, i.e., during the pendency of the testamentary suit, such transfer is not valid in the eye of law. The settlee, namely, the second defendant, is not a family member of Balasubramanian, whereas to defeat the revenue, the settlement was effected. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant that the Cancellation of Settlement is valid in the eye of law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
