APPAN M PALANISAMY Vs. DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent herein/plaintiff has filed the suit in OS. No. 158 of 1995 for declaration that the sale deed dated 7.12.1994 is not maintainable in law and that the suit property belonged to the Plaintiff and to direct the Defendants to hand over possession of the same and for costs.

(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:- (a) THE Plaintiff, namely, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is the Political Party recognised by the Election Commission of India. After the demise of the leader Thiru.C.N.Annadurai in the year 1969, the members of the DMK Party of Vellakoil decided to build a Memorial House for which a Committee, namely, Anna Ninaivu IlIa Committee, was formed, to which the 1st Defendant, namely, Appan M. Palanisamy who was the then District Secretary was elected as the President of the said Committee. In the first item of the suit properties, that is, in the Poramboke land, a building was constructed and was named as "Anna Mandram". In order to have more space for the activities of the "Anna Mandram", the suit 2nd item was purchased in the name of the 1 st defendant herein, the President, Anna Ninaivu IlIa Committee by a registered sale deed dated 13.5.1969. THE sale consideration of Rs. 11,200/ was paid to the vendor by collecting the said amount from the public. (b) In the year 1985, the 1st defendant left the DMK Party and joined some other Political Party and hence, the 1 st defendant has no interest or right whatsoever in the suit properties, but, he has been in possession of the suit properties against law. Hence, it was decided to settle the matter amicably without resorting to Court proceedings. In the mean time, some other members also left the Party. THE 1st defendant attempted to sell the suit properties to third parties. Hence, one Periasamy the then District Secretary issued a notice on 20.12.1994 published in a daily Newspaper, to which, the 1st defendant issued a reply dated 22.12.1994 with false averments, but on 7.12.1994 itself the 1 st defendant sold the suit properties to the 2nd defendant. THE 1 st defendant permitted the 3rd defendant to run a Hospital in the suit properties. THE sale in favour of the 2nd defendant is not valid and maintainable in law. Hence, the suit has been filed.

(3.) BEFORE the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, Exhibit A-1 to A-12 were marked and P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exhibit B?1 to B-3 were marked and D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined.