CHINNASAMY Vs. SUBAKMUL GULECHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein who lost in both the Courts below. The plaintiff seeks declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : The suit property belonged to one Sudarsanam Reddiar. He mortgaged the property to one Muthulakshmi Animal. The plaintiff claimed that he redeemed it and purchased the property after discharging the mortgage on 9-2-1978. While so, when the first respondent interfered with his possession, he made enquiries. He learnt that in a Court auction sale conducted in the execution proceedings in O.S. No. 1?04 of 1973 filed by the second respondent against the aforesaid Sudarsanam Reddiar, the first respondent purchased the property.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and in any event the Court auction sale conducted is not in accordance with Order 21, Rule 54. CPC and, therefore, it cannot be held to be a valid attachment or sale. The plaintiff had made enquiries regarding any subsisting encumbrance and only thereafter had purchased the property and, therefore, he was entitled to the relief claimed.