RAMAN NADAR Vs. BHOOTHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Nagercoil in A.S. 148 of 1121 dismissing the suit in reversal of the decree of the Additional Munsiff of Nagercoil in O.S. 290 of 1117.

(2.) The facts so far as they are necessary for the purpose of this appeal may be stated thus. The plaint property originally belonged to one Arumughom Nadar. He executed a sale of the property to his wife Annalekshmi Nadachi on 20.2.1095. Annalekshmi Nadachi sold the property to one Palanimuthu under Ext. A sale deed dated 8.7.1098. The latter sold the property to Iyenkannu Nadar Ext. B dated 22.10.1099 from whom plaintiff purchased under Ext. C sale deed dated 8.5.1111. According to the plaintiff possession followed Ext. A, B and C sale deeds and he was in possession of the property under Ext. C. directly and through his lessees. One Daivana obtained a money decree against Annalekshmi in O.S. 1029 of 1100 and in execution attached the plaint property and purchased it in court auction and sought delivery of possession of the property. Ext XV dated 24.7.1101 is the delivery list. The plaintiff's case is that Ext. XV was but a paper delivery and that the auction purchaser did not get actual possession. Immediately after Ext. XV dispute regarding possession of the property arose between the auction purchaser in O.S. 1029 of 1100 and the vendee of the property which resulted in several criminal cases between the parties. In the meantime 1st defendant purchased the property from Daivanna's daughter Nagaramma on 11.11.1110. Ext. VIII is the sale deed in his favour. The dispute regarding possession ultimately terminated in a proceeding under S. 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As a result of the enquiry 1st defendant's possession was declared. The order of the First Class Magistrate was sought to be revised in revision before the High Court without any success. The plaintiff has therefore filed the present suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the property. The 1st defendant contended that Ext. A is a sham and benami document executed with a view to defeat and delay the creditors of Annalekshmi, that Exts. B and C also stood on the same footing and that no possession passed under these documents. According to him the property was validly sold in execution of the decree in O.S. 1029 of 1100 and delivered over to the decree holder auction purchaser. The order of the First Class Magistrate was therefore contended to be correct. It was also pleaded that after the delivery of the property in execution of the decree in O.S. 1029 of 1100 Iyenkannu Nadar vendee under Ext. B applied for redelivery of the property and that the suit brought after one year from the date of that order is barred under Art.8(2) of the Limitation Act. The title of the plaintiff and his predecessors in interest was alleged to be barred by adverse possession also.

(3.) The learned Munsiff repelled the contentions of the 1st defendant and decreed the suit. The learned Judge held that Exts. A, B and C are sham or benami documents and that title to and possession of the property passed under the court sale and delivery in O.S. 1029 of 1100. Therefore in reversal of the Trial Court he dismissed the suit with costs.