VIMALA AMMAL Vs. C SUSEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Appeal is against the dismissal order dated 12-1-1990 in E.A. No. 4250 of 1986 in E.P. No. 523 of 1986 in O.S. No. 3244 of 1983 on the file of the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. In the said suit in C.S. No.3244 of 1983 the first respondent obtained ex parte decree on 23-3-1984 for a specific performance of Ex.A.58 sale agreement dated 25-10-1982 executed in favour of the first respondent for a sale consideration of Rs. 48,125/-. The said Ex. A.58 was by the second respondent, the mother, and her children, the respondents 3 to 8.

(2.) Subsequently to the decree, through E.P. No.2297, 1984 she got the sale deed in her favour and in the abovesaid E.A. No. 523 of 1986 got possession on 7-11-1985 of the property sold, through the court-bailiff. But the appellant has filed the abovesaid E.A. No. 4250 of 1985 under O. 21, R.99 of the Code of Civil Procedure for redelivery of the suit property to her on the ground that she had purchased the said property from the second respondent for Rs. 45,000/- under the sale deed, Ex. A.12 dated 10-3-1983 itself, even prior to filing of the abovesaid suit on 27-4-1983, that the abovesaid decree could not be executed against her, that the abovesaid decree was not valid and that he could not be dispossessed pursuant to the said decree. The appellant's further plea is that after purchasing the said property under Ex. A.12 he had put up superstructures on the site of the property and was carrying on Iron business under the name and style "S.V. Ramalings Nadar and Company."

(3.) The Court below has dismissed the said E.A. No.4250 of 1986 on the ground inter alia that the abovesaid sale agreement Ex.A.58 dated 25-10-1982 in favour of the first respondent-decree-holder, was prior to Ex.A.12 sale deed dated 10-3-1983 executed in favour of the appellant and that it could not be held that possession was taken in the said R.P. proceedings from the appellant and consequently a petition under O.21, R.99 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not lie.