ITTAMAN Vs. THIEYYOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff I is the appellant. The circumstances leading to the institution of the suit giving rise to this second appeal, the nature of the claim made in the plaint in the suit and the defences raised are set out as follows in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the lower appellate court's judgment:-

(2.) The Trial Court found that plaintiff 1 had become the purchaser of the rights of Chirukandan to enforce the vendors's lien arising out of the non payment by defendant 1 of part of the consideration for the sale evidenced by Ext. A, that the plaintiff had a right to sue and that there was no limitation. The appellate court came to the opposite conclusion on all these points and hence this appeal by plaintiff.

(3.) Two nice and interesting questions of law arise for decision in the second appeal. One is whether when a purchaser of immovable property covenants, in consideration of the transfer of such property to him to discharge certain liabilities of the vendor, the amount reserved for payment to the latter's creditor can be held to be purchase money unpaid so that the vendor may have a charge for the money remaining unpaid to the creditor. Chirukandan sold the property to defendant 1 and as part of the consideration for the sale the litter undertook to discharge the amounts due to Ittooli as per the terms of the partition deed. The money was payable on the death of Mani, the mother of Chirukandan and Itooli. Mani died on 10-9-1101 and the present suit was brought only on 4-4-1115. Assuming that Chirukandan was entitled to a vendor's lien and the appellant acquired that right under the court sale in O. S. 428 of 1103 the suit would be barred unless the acknowledgment relied upon by the plaintiff can be found to be true.