S R JABARAJ Vs. T N GOPAL DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the appellants.

(2.) THE case of the appellants was that their predecessor-in-title P.Lakshmanan purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 2.6.1984 and eversince the date of purchase, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally, a vacant land measuring 1 ground and 1884 sqft in Kannagi Nagar, Manali Salai, Madras comprised in S.No.564, Re-Survey No.3843 in Collector's Certificate No.1369 of Korukkupet Village was owned by one Shanmugasundaram and six others and they formed a lay out and sold plot No.3 to P.Lakshmanan under the sale deed dated 2.6.1984. Later, the defendant/deceased first respondent informed him that he was the prior agreement holder in respect of the entire one acre and 1884 sqft of land and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed of the year 1991 and therefore, the plaintiff has no right or title to be in the suit property. THEreafter, the deceased plaintiff Lakshmanan made enquiry and found that the deceased first respondent/defendant filed the suit against the original owners in the year 1984 without impleading the subsequent purchasers and obtained decree in the year 1988 and that suit filed by the deceased first respondent/defendant in O.S.No.1223 of 1984 was after the purchase of the property by the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant cannot have any superior title than the plaintiff even assuming that his agreement was earlier in point of time and the plaintiff was not made a party in O.S.No.1223 of 1984 and therefore, he is not bound by the decree passed in O.S.No.1223 of 1984 and as his title was disputed, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction.

(3.) THE Trial Court held that the purchase by the plaintiff was after the filing of the suit in O.S.No.1223 of 1984 and therefore, the same is hit by lis pendens and he has also admitted the title of the defendant and also undertook to vacate and hand over the possession if the defendant got decree in the suit filed by him and that is evidenced by Ex.B8 and as per the decree in O.S.No.1223 of 1984, the defendant became the absolute owner of the entire extent of the property and the sale in favour of the plaintiff which was during the pendency of the said suit will not clothe any superior right on the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree as prayed for.