PALANIAMMAL Vs. KAMALAKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are in appeal aggrieved by the judgment of reversal by the High Court in a First Appeal preferred by the defendants. The parties shall be referred to by their original suit position for convenience.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the wife and legal heirs of one Govindasamy who was the first cousin of Ramasamy Naicker. The defendants are the legal heirs of Govindan who was the son inlaw of Ramasamy Naicker. O.S. No.10 of 1988 was preferred by the plaintiffs to set aside the judgement and decree of auction dated 26.09.1955 in favour of Govindan, seeking consequent relief for possession of the suit property along with mesne profits for the last three years. The suit was decreed on contest. Though the auction sale was held as not liable to be set aside but a declaration issued that the auction judgment dated 26.09.1955 made in favour of the defendants' father was wholly by way of trust for the beneficial ownership of Govindasamy. The predecessor of the defendants, Govindan was held to be only an ostensible owner of the suit property purchased in court auction on behalf of Govindasamy entitling the plaintiffs to mesne profits from the date of plaint till delivery of possession.

(3.) The High Court in a First Appeal preferred by the defendants concluded there had been completely erroneous appreciation of evidence by the trial court. Govindan was held to be a real purchaser at the auction sale and lawful owner of the property who had paid the necessary purchase price to the mortgagee with stipulated interest leading to issuance of sale certificate dated 21.07.1960 pursuant to the auction proceedings dated 13.10.1955. The receipt dated 30.12.1961 and the extracts from the register of encryption with translation dated 13.10.1955 made it apparent that Govindan was the lawful owner of the property and that he did not purchase on behalf of the appellants and neither was there any proof that Govindasamy had in fact funded the auction sale through Govindan.