13.It is not in dispute, as above stated, that the suit property originally belonged to Subramaniyan pillai. The plaintiff claims that the suit property had been alienated by Subramaniyan pillai in favour of Sanjeevirayan, under Ex.A7 sale deed. Per contra, the first defendant claims that Subramaniyan pillai had alienated the suit property in favour of Michael Raj, by way of Ex.B1 sale transaction. It is found that even prior to Ex.A7, sale transaction, the original owner Subramaniyan pillai had alienated the suit property in favour of Michael Raj, by way of Ex.B1 sale transaction. Such being the position, when it has not been established by the plaintiff that Subramaniyan pillai had the legal competency to convey the suit property in favour of Sanjeevirayan, by way of Ex.A7 sale transaction, at the relevant point of time, it is found that the plaintiff's case that Sanjeevirayan had secured the valid ownership of the suit property, by way of Ex.A7 sale transaction, as such, cannot be accepted in any manner. Accordingly, it is found that, when Sanjeevirayan is found to have not obtained the valid title to the suit property under Ex.A7 sale transaction, it is seen that his claim of transfer of the suit property to one Vijaya Kumar by way of Ex.A1 sale transaction is also found to be invalid and equally it is further found that the alleged sale of the suit property by Vijayakumar in favour of the plaintiff by way of Ex.A2 sale transaction is found to be invalid. On the other hand, it is found that the original owner Subramaniyan pillai having sold the suit property in favour of Michael Raj by way of Ex.B1 as early as on 01.05.1964, the case of the first defendant that Michael Raj had alienated the suit property by way of Ex.B2, sale transaction on 17.11.1971 in favour of Andro Venkatrama Naiker would go to show that it is only Andro Venkatrama Naiker, who has obtained a valid title to the suit property and enjoying the same, pursuant thereto.
