other accused. Therefore, their vendor had no title over the property. That apart, even assuming that they had title and Power of Attorney in favour of the first accused. The same was cancelled as early as 28.08.1997 itself. The second accused filed suit in the year 1998 in O.S.No. 311 of 1998, on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry for partition. On a perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that the second accused filed a suit arraying the vendors namely Kandasamy and his brother Loganathan, as first and second defendants. The other defendants are two sisters of Loganathan and Kandasamy who had no title over the property. The other defendants namely defendants 5 to 7 are purchasers from the second accused. Therefore, all the parties have colluded together to obtain a decree of partition, vide judgement and decree dated 27.10.2000. Thereafter, the second accused filed an application for final decree in I.A.No. 754/2000. While it was pending, the another persons claiming title over the property, filed an Application in I.A.No. 678 of 2005 to implead themselves as party in final decree. Thereafter, the second accused had withdrawn the said application and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The preliminary decree was not at all acted upon and there was no division of properties as per the preliminary decree. Therefore, it raises all suspicion that the accused persons had created sale deed in their favour from the person who had no title over the property. In order to escape https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/22
