RAGHAVAN ALIAS BHAGAVATHIKANNU PILLAI Vs. M KRISHNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.1.1983 made in A.S. Nos. 138,139 and 140 of 1981 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil with in its turn came to be filed against the order dated 12-11-1981 in E.A. No. 598 of 1980 in O.S. No. 525 of 1970 on the file of the principal Listriet Munsif, Nagercoil.

(2.) O.S. No. 525 or 1980 was filed by Bagavathi Ammal and Krishnammal for recovery of the property from the lessees, namely, B. Vallinayagam and B. Velu Pillai and other defendants who claimed under defendants 1 and 2. The basis or the suit was that the lease of a vacant land was granted on 9.2.1109 M.E. which was executed in favour of the mother of the plaintiffs referred to above. Under the lease deed, the lessees were permitted to construct buildings on the vacant land there was a provision to receive the value of it while surrenderimg possession. The said suit was filed on the ground of arrears of rent and for own occupation. On 26.10.1972, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the value of the building was Rs. 2,854/and recovery of possession was granted subject to the payment of the said value.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the revision petition before this court, the present respondents in the above appeal appear to have purchased the three buildings in question from the plaintiffs. Consequently, the respon-dants were brought on record in E.A. No. 1080 of 1980 as successors-in-interest and transferees from the plaintiff's respondents 1 and 2 in the court below. They claimed the value of certain inprovements claimed to have been made for repairs etc. The third respondent in the court below did not file any counter and the fourth respondent fled a counter claiming a sum of Rs. 4,000/for improvements in building 28/12 and the fifth respondent filed a counter claiming Rs. 10,500/for improvements for the building 28/13. Their claim was on the basis of section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. The executing court rejected the claim of the respondents for the value of improvements and ordered restitution. While so, the second respondent in E.A. No. 598 of 1980 filed A.S. No. 140 for 1981 claiming that she had purchased three-fourth cent in the northern portion in the southern half of the entire property on 15-4-1977 and also claiming that the building 28/11 formed as part of the building with her. It may be stated that the said respondent was a party to the suit and all proceedings therein. The fifth respondent in the court below filed A.S. No. 139 od 1981 claiming relief for improvements on the basis that she was a bonafide purchaser. The fourth respondent filed A.S. No. 138 of 1981 making a similar claim. It is to be noted that none of these claimants filed their respective sale deeds before the Court below to establish the actual date of purchase as well as the terms of the sale. The lower appellate Court, by its common order dated 20-1-1983, allowed the appeal and directed the remand of E.A. No. 598 of 1980 to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to the appellants before the lower appellate Court to prove their claim possession for compensation for improvements in the light of the observations made by the said court. It may also be stated that the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the redelivery ordered by the trial court was justified. Aggrieved against the orders of the lower appellate Court, the above appeal has been filed.