LEKSHMI GNANAPAKIAM Vs. PONNIAN NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of title to, and possession of, property. The plaint property originally belonged to one Gurpadam. It was sold for arrears of tax and was purchased by one Mytheen Khan Karion Khan. He sold the property to one Mariakannoo Pakiam under Ext. A on 25.7.1086. Pakiam executed a Sthreedhana sale in favour her adopted daughter Gnanappu Gnanaselvam under Ext. B dated 28.9.1036. Gnanaselvam executed a settlement deed in respect of the property in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3. Ext. C dated 4.7.1098 is the settlement deed. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 sold their rights to the 4th plaintiff on 12.3.1122, under Ext. H. The defendant took a sale deed for the property from the brother of Mariakannoo Pakiam who was her legal heir. Ext. 2 dated 20.6.1112 is the sale deed. On the basis of the sale deed the defendant managed to get patta in her name. The suit is to set aside the pokkuvaravu decision and for declaration of the 4th plaintiff's title to, and possession of, the property.

(2.) The defendant contended that the right of Mariakkannoo Pakiam did not devolve on Gnanaselvam, and that the settlement deed, Ext. C executed by Gnanaselvam in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 was not valid. Pakiam and Gnanaselvam were in joint possession of the property. Subsequently difference of opinion arose between them and from 1094 onwards Gnanaselvam was not allowed to be in undisturbed possession of the property. Gnanaselvam thereupon filed Ext. K suit (O.S. No. 655 of 1094 of the Padmanabhapuram Munsiff's Court) for declaration of her title to, and possession of, the property. Pakiam contended that the sale deed, Ext. B execeted by her was not in favour of the plaintiff in Ext. K suit but was in favour of Pakiam's own daughter Gnanaselvam. This contention was repelled by the court and the suit was decreed on 23.3.1099. Ext. K is the copy of the judgment. Pakiam appealed from the decree as A.S. No. 344 of 1099 of the Nagercoil District Court. The settlement deed, Ext. C, was executed by Gnanaselvam in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 during the pendency of the suit, namely, on 4.7.1098. The appeal was compromised between Pakiam and Gnanaselvam and by the compromise Gnanaselvam's right in the property was negatived and the suit was allowed to be dismissed. Ext. 4 dated 1.8.1100 is the copy of the compromise decree. The defendant contended that Ext. C was vitiated by lis pendens and that, therefore, plaintiffs 1 to 3 did not acquire any right in the property under that document.

(3.) The court below held that Ext. C was not affected by lis pendens since Ext. 4 was a compromise decree. According to the learned Munsiff the rule of lis pendens will not apply to compromise decrees. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Travancore High Court in Sankaran Padmanabhan v. Sakarar Eraviar (7 TLR 42), Chellakannu v. Kochan (18 TLJ 478) and on 18 TLJ Short Notes page 147.