GOURI AMMA KANAKAMMA Vs. KESAVAN GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of this appeal by defendants 6 and 9, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case in detail. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows :

(2.) In pursuance to an agreement Ext.A7 dated 2-11-1965 between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other, two documents Exts.A2 and A3 were executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs conveying title to immovable properties mentioned therein. Ext.A2 dated 11-2-1965 is a deed of exchange, and Ext.A3 dated 16-4-1966 is a sale deed conveying immovable properties to the Ist plaintiff. The Ist defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 6 to 9 were impleaded as his legal representatives. The appeal is by two among the legal representatives of the 1st defendant.

(3.) Part of the property conveyed to the plaintiffs under Exts.A2 and A3 was lost on account of the decree in O.S. No.471 of 1966 obtained by a third party. Ext.A8 dated 22-7-1970 is the preliminary decree for redemption and recovery of possession of the property concerned. The present defendants 1 and 2 are also parties to that suit. The present plaintiffs appealed against Ext.A8 preliminary decree for redemption and recovery of possession of the property. The appellate Court confirmed the decree whereupon a second appeal was filed before this Court by the present plaintiffs. The present defendants 1 and 2 who were also parties to O.S. No.471 of 1966 had suffered the preliminary decree Ext. A8 and had not taken up the matter in appeal. At the second appeal stage there was a compromise as evidenced by Ext.A10 and in pursuance to the compromise decree a final decree was passed a certified copy of which is produced as Ext.A9. It was in pursuance to these proceedings that portions of the property conveyed to the plaintiffs under Exts.A2 and A3 were lost. The plaintiffs claim compensation for the loss of property from defendants 1 and 2, who had purported to convey title to the plaintiffs. They have also claimed mesne profits which they were obliged to pay to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.471/1966 and also costs of that litigation. The plaintiffs had also to pay a sum of Rs.3031.35 to salvage another item of property conveyed under Ext.A3. It is to recover these amounts that the present suit had been filed.