INAS ARANHA Vs. SHIVAYYA BANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this regular second appeal, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the lower Appellate Court was in error in applying the provisions of Section 29(1) of Madras Aliya Santhana Act, 1949 (the 'Madras Act' for short) while holding that the sale deeds executed by defendants 11 to 13 being void were not binding on defendants 1 to 10? Yet another question urged is whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in entertaining the contention regarding the applicability of the provisions contained under Section 29 of the Madras Act, though the same was not pleaded before the trial Court.

(2.) The appellant was not a party in the trial Court, nor was he a party in the first appeal. The father of the appellant herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 404/1987. He filed the said suit seeking partition and separate possession of the undivided interest of defendants 11 to 13 in the properties sold to him by defendants 11 to 13. Admittedly, defendants 1 to 13 were members of Aliya Santhana family and the plaint 'A' schedule properties belonged to the family. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the shares of defendants 11 to 13 in the 'A' schedule properties under two sale deeds dated 12-5-1981 and 19-11-1986.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that by virtue of the sale deeds executed, they had become the owners and sharers in the suit schedule properties and therefore they were entitled for equitable partition having stepped into the shoes of defendants 11 to 13.