property is ancestral in nature. But considering the pleas set out in the plaint, it is found that the suit had been laid by the plaintiffs only on the footing that the suit was originally owned by Ponnikannan and that the suit property was owned by Ponnikannan has also been admitted by the third defendant during the course of her evidence. Accordingly, even during the course of chief examination, the third defendant has clearly admitted that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 were the absolute owners of the suit property and that she had purchased the same only from the defendants 1 and 2 by way of the registered sale deed 05.03.1999. During the course of cross examination, the third defendant, examined as D.W.1, has further clearly admitted that she had not verified the Encumbrance certificate at the time of purchase and admitted that the defendants 1 and 2 represented at the time of sale that the suit property belonged to their father Ponnikannan and that the patta stood in their name and on that assurance, she had purchased the suit property. Furthermore, also admitted that in the suit property, others were also residing and also admitted that the suit property belonged to Ponnikannan and however, feigned ignorance as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain 1/5 share each in the suit property as the legal heirs of Ponnikannan. Subsequently admitted that she is entitled only to 2/5 share in the suit property and that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/5 share in the suit property. Thus from the evidence of D.W.1 and the pleas set out in the plaint and the written statement, it is found that the suit property originally belonged to Ponnikannan and accordingly, the third defendant has also admitted that both the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property and accordingly, the third defendant has also pleaded in the written statement that the defendants 1 and 2 had alienated the suit property in her favour with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. However, the abovesaid case of the third defendant is unacceptable. If really, the plaintiffs had the knowledge about the sale transaction and given consent to the same, nothing prevented the third defendant from obtaining the sale deed executed even from the plaintiffs along with the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the abovesaid plea of the third defendant is found to be false. The third defendant would also plead in the written statement that the sale consideration was received by both the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2. However, there are no recitals pointing to the same in the sale deed dated 05.03.1999, the copy of which is marked as Ex.A1. If really the sale transaction dated 05.03.1999 had been entered into with the consent of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had also received the sale transaction, necessary recitals to that effect would have been incorporated in Ex.A1 sale deed. Furthermore, according to the third defendant, she had purchased the suit property without verifying the Encumbrance Certificate. It is further seen that the third defendant had purchased the
