SARADHAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. SANKARALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration and injunction in respect of the property purported to have been purchased by one Arumugam bonafidely and for due consideration from Subramani and Krishnan under the sale deed dated 30.10.1973. The vendors of Arumugam got the property from one Syed Usuf Sahib vide sale deed dated 15.05.1968. Arumugam took the possession of the property and made improvement over it. He died a year before the suit. After his demise, the property devolved upon the appellants being his legal heirs. Alleging that the respondent herein attempted to trespass into the suit property on 12.11.1981 claiming title, the suit filed for the relief of declaration of title and injunction.

(2.) The respondent herein contested the suit stating that one Syed Yusuf Sahib, who was the original owner of the property borrowed Rs. 1,300/- from one Duraisamy Mudaliar. To recover the said money Duraisamy Mudaliar filed O.S. No. 24/1968 on the file of District Munsif Court at Thirupattur. There was an order of attachment before judgment in respect of the suit property pending suit. The suit reached its finality when the Second Appeal filed by the judgment debtor/Syed Yusuf Sahib dismissed on 30.04.1975 by the High Court. Thereafter, the suit property was brought for auction sale by the decree holder. The respondent herein purchased the suit property for Rs. 2,510/- in the Court auction dated 10.06.1981, held pursuant to the execution petition. The auction sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued to him on 15.09.1981. Thereafter, he took possession of the property through Court on 10.11.1981. Being the Court auction purchaser and had validly taken delivery of the property through Court, the suit for declaration of title is not maintainable since the transaction of the property under attachment pending litigation is void.

(3.) The Trial Court held that the defendant failed to prove the fact that the suit property was under court attachment on the 15.05.1968 when Syed Yusuf sold the property to Subramani and Krishnan. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-title Arumugam, who purchased the property on 30.10.1973 had taken possession of the property and revenue records are mutated in his name. He had improved the land by getting electricity connection and installing motor pumpset. After his demise, the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. Therefore, the sale deed dated 30.10.1973 is valid and the title over the property had duly passed to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. Regarding possession, taking note of the documents such as Chitta, Adangal, Patta, demand notice from Electricity Board, Consumption Bills supporting the possession and enjoyment by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court held that the delivery of possession through Court as recorded in Ex.B.1 is only a paper delivery.