RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SANKARAIAH NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 06.03.2007 in E.A. No. 50 of 2004 in E.P. No. 25 of 2004 in O.S. No. 207 of 1991 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

(2.) The trial Court while passing orders in E.A. No. 50 of 2004 in E.P. No. 25 of 2004 in O.S. No. 207 of 1991 on 06.03.2007 has among other things observed that '...since the Judgment Debtor had cunningly registered the Settlement Deed in favour of her son having full knowledge of the contested Judgment in O.S. No. 207 of 1991 and order in E.P. No. 142 of 2001, this Court feels that the Settlement Deed is not valid in view of the Sale Deed executed by Judgment Debtor in pursuance to the Decree on 10.03.2003. Further, on perusal of Ex.R1, it is evident that as early as 02.04.1991, notice has been sent under instructions to the petitioner and his Mother viz., the Judgment Debtor to the counsel for the Decree Holder, which shows that the petitioners had full knowledge of the suit. Further, on perusal of Ex.R2, it is the agreement entered into between the deceased Judgment Debtor and the Respondent/Decree Holder wherein the present petitioner had signed as a witness. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner had full knowledge of the transactions between the deceased Judgment Debtor and the Decree Holder and resultantly, dismissed the Application.

(3.) According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner, the order of the trial Court in dismissing E.A. No. 50 of 2004 dated 06.03.2007 is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case and in fact, the sole Defendant expired on 12.01.2003 and therefore, all the proceedings after his death was an invalid one and non est in the eye of Law.