You and the Seller should File suit to set aside fraudulent release deed 

take the plea that releasor has no share in property 

3) rely upon registered deed of 1972 to prove your case 

Is koorchit registered document 

You have good case on merits 

litigation is long drawn and expensive proposition 

- Since, the two branches get the property share by way of Koorchit , then they were having right to sell their respective share to anyone without taking consent the others. 

- Further, as the one branch sold their share to the third party , then legally he transfer his right over his property to the purchaser. 

- Further, the declaration through registered deed is also a proof that he has no right over any part of the property in that survey.

- Hence, the said Release deed having no legal value in the eye of law even it is registered. 

- Since, you have purchased the property from the third party who had purchased from the one branch , hence his title over the property was legal and accordingly after purchasing it , now you become the legal owner of that property. 

- Suit for declaration is barred after the limitation period of 3 years. 

Koor chit is also considered as a valid form of partition and this will fall under the category of oral partition.

Thus on the basis of the said koor chit  partition, the branch which has taken away its share have no share in the property that was allocated to the other branch. 

If somebody is mischievously creating any document to establish their rights in the property falsely then their intention is to defraud the other shareholders of their legitimate share in the property. 

You may wait and watch the litigation if any started by the other party so that you can defend your interest ion the basis of the registered title document on your name which is a substantial document to defend your interest. 

Koor chit is a recognized oral partition and is legally valid in the eyes of law.

The suit for declaration filed now is an after thought hence not maintainable especially when the injunction suit was dismissed,  however the judgment of the injunction suit need to perused to render  more proper opinion. 

Dear Client,

The Koorchit from 1953 outlines how the ancestral property was shared between two branches. The branch that sold their share of the property through registered sale deeds before 1960 effectively transferred their ownership rights to third parties. Once these sales were completed, that branch had no further legal claim to the property in question. The registered declaration in 1972, where the branch confirmed they had exhausted all their share in the specific Survey Number, further reinforces that they had no remaining rights in the property.

The two release deeds executed by the brothers in 2002 are legally questionable because they attempt to claim a share in a property that their branch had already sold and declared as fully transferred by 1972. These deeds cannot override the previous legal transfers and declarations. The fact that the litigant lost in the Munsif Court, District Court, and Madras High Court in a suit for injunction indicates that the courts have already ruled in your favour. The new pending suit for declaration of title can be argued as an abuse of the legal process as it seems to be an attempt to re-litigate an issue that has already been settled by the courts.

Your lawyer can file a motion to dismiss the current suit on the grounds of res judicata, estoppel, and lack of merit, given that the property has been legally transferred and the matter already adjudicated. Given the 9-year delay, you can request the court to expedite the trial, arguing that the prolonged litigation is unjustified, especially since the litigant has already lost in previous courts. Your lawyer should focus on these arguments to seek a dismissal or expedite the resolution of the case in your favor. Should you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.