K NATARAJAN Vs. GOPALASUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in O.S.No.4339 of 1986 on the file of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The other defendants in the suit have not been arrayed as parties in the second appeal. The above suit was filed by the first respondent for declaration of title in the 'A' scheduled property and for recovery of possession of the 'B' scheduled property. There were as many as six defendants in the suit originally. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant Mr.Manicka Sastrigal died in whose place, the 7th defendant was brought on record as his Legal Representative. During the pendency of the this second appeal, the second respondent (the 7th defendant) Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram died in whose place the respondents 3 to 6 have been brought on record as his Legal Representatives. The suit was ultimately dismissed by the Trial Court. As against the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.113 of 1995 before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. In the said first appeal, the defendants 2 and 7 alone were arrayed as respondents and the other defendants were not arrayed as parties at all. The lower Appellate Court by decree and judgment dated 29.02.1996, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the second defendant has come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff as could be culled out from the plaint is as follows:

(3.) The second defendant who is the appellant before this Court, in his written statement, contended that though the sale deed dated 22.12.1938, stood in the name of Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal, it was purchased as benami in her name only by the first defendant Mr.Manicka Sastrigal. Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal died on 11.04.1956 leaving behind her only legal representative Mr.Manicka Sastrigal who is the first defendant in the suit. From the first defendant, the second defendant has purchased a portion of the 'A' scheduled property viz., 'B' scheduled property on 28.02.1986. Thus, the second defendant has become the absolute owner of the 'B' scheduled property. The first defendant in his written statement contended that though the property stood in the name of Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal, it was purchased as Benami by him only. Since the first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and since the 7th defendant is his legal heir, the 7th defendant is the absolute owner of the remaining property in 'A' schedule. The 7th defendant has filed a separate written statement in which he has stated that the property was purchased as benami in the name of Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal by his father viz., the first defendant and on the demise of the first defendant, the 7th defendant has title and enjoyment of the suit property.