L MOHANAM Vs. MOHAMED IDRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in C.S.No.434 of 2007 on the file of this court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction is the appellant in the Original Side Appeal. The suit had been filed for (1) a declaration declaring that the first respondent had no redeemable right over the plaint schedule properties, (2) a declaration declaring the plaintiff (appellant) to be the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, (3) a decree cancelling the ex-parte decree dated 14.06.2006 passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.9869/1990 as having been obtained by misrepresentation and (4) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming through them in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's/appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) INITIALLY the suit was filed against Mohamed Idris, the first respondent alone showing him to be the sole defendant. Subsequently, as per order dated 20.10.2008 made in A.No.1347/2008, respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant by filing a written statement. After their impleadment defendants 2 and 3 also filed wirtten statement and thereafter the appellant/plaintiff filed a reply statement. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned single judge of this court dismissed the suit with costs by judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 and the said decree is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the first defendant by raising the following contentions in his written statement:- i) Mrs.Thayub Begum, the original owner of the suit property had rented out her house consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor to one Pukhraj Jain for a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- exclusive of electricity charges. After the death of Thayub Begum, the tenant stopped making payment of rent to anybody and the said tenant Pukhraj Jain filed R.C.O.P.No.699/1985 as if there was a dispute as to who was the land-lord. THE said R.C.O.P. was dismissed. ii) Thayub Begum had executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of Indra Kanvar Bai Taleda for a sum of Rs.9,000/- and paid interest on the said amount till her death in 1978. One Abdul Rahman, in the pretext of redeeming the mortgage property, fraudulently sold the same for a sum of Rs.25,000/- to one Ziauddin on 07.01.1985. THE said purchase by Ziauddin and the sale made by him to the appellant herein/plaintiff are fraudulent. Hence the mother of Mohamed Idris, the first respondent/first defendant, filed a suit O.S.No.9869/1990 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against Abdul Rahman, Ziauddin and other tenants in respect of the suit properties. THE appellant herein/plaintiff, who claims to have purchased the suit property from Ziauddin on 10.06.1998, got impleaded in the above suit seven years after his purchase and he was arrayed as the 6th defendant. Except the appellant herein/plaintiff, who figured as the 6th defendant in the said suit, other defendant in O.S.No.9869/1990 remained ex-parte. Even the appellant herein/plaintiff, who figured as the 6th defendant in O.S.No.9869/1990, later on failed to contest the suit and an ex-parte decree was passed against him. Under such circumstances, the first respondent herein/first defendant, being the lawful owner of the suit property, sold the same to Syed Nazrullah Basha and Nazreen Begum, the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3, on 24.08.2007. THE said sale is valid and binding on the appellant herein/plaintiff also. Since the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title had no legal right to be conveyed under the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, he has got no locus standi to file the suit C.S.No.434 of 2007 and none of the reliefs sought for in the plaint can be granted. THE above civil suit should be dismissed with exemplary costs.