is stated that Singaravelu had given Dandapani in adoption to Poongavanam Ammal, wife of Rathinakara Mudaliar by way of the registered adoption dated 12.03.1944 and thereafter, Dandapani is not entitled to claim any right in the property belonging to his natural father Singaravelu and furthermore, after adoption, Dandapani had alienated the properties belonging to his adoptive father Rathinakara Mudaliar by way of various sale transactions and in the abovesaid sale transactions as well as in the will executed by Singaravelu dated 29.04.1944 in favour of his wife Ammani Ammal, clear recitals are found that Dandapani Mudaliar had been given in adoption and by virtue of the will dated 29.04.1944, the properties belonging to Singaravelu comprised in the abovesaid will only belonged to Ammai Ammal and afterthat, her daughters had acquired title to the same and therefore, it is put forth that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any title to the plaint Á' schedule property, much less the plaint 'B'' schedule property by virtue of the sale deed said to have been executed in his favour by Dandapani Mudaliar and further according to the defendants, the daughters of Singaravelu had executed a power deed in favour of one Sathya Murthy in respect of the properties belonging to them and further it is stated that the power holder Sathya Murthy, on the strength of the power deed, had conveyed the plaint Á' schedule property and other properties lying on the eastern side in favour of the defendants for a valid consideration by way of the registered sale deed and therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim title to the suit properties based on an invalid sale deed executed by Dandapani Mudaliar and accordingly sought for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
