A RAJALAKSHMI Vs. SENGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First Appeal A.S.No.589 of 1994 is filed by defendants 2 to 5 challenging a judgment and decree passed on 5.4.1994 in O.S.No.110 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, in favour of the plaintiffs, (i) declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties (ii) cancelling the Settlement Deed and the Trust Deed dated 25.2.1970 (iii) directing recovery of possession of the properties to the plaintiffs (iv) directing the defendants to render accounts and (v) ordering an inquiry into mesne profits. After the decree, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.1338 of 1995 on the file of the Trial Court, praying for determination of the mesne profits. The Trial Court determined the mesne profits payable as Rs.10,77,772/- for the period from 1974 to 1996. In pursuance of the said order passed on 15.3.1996 in I.A.No.1338 of 1995, the plaintiffs filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.97 of 2000. In the Execution Petition, the objections of the judgment-debtors were overruled and an order of attachment was passed on 26.10.2000. Therefore, challenging the said order of attachment passed in the Execution Petition, the defendants 2 to 5 (judgment-debtors) have also filed a revision petition in CRP No.3542 of 2000.

(2.) IN the first appeal, the appellants have taken out 2 miscellaneous petitions C.M.P.Nos.10569 of 1996 and 17037 of 2000. While the former is for correcting the date of filing of the suit from 18-1-1974 to 28-1-1991 in the decree, the latter is under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, for reception of additional evidence. Therefore, the First Appeal, the miscellaneous petitions and the Civil Revision Petition arising out of the order of attachment passed by the Executing Court, were all taken together for disposal.

(3.) THE suit O.S.No.110 of 1991, out of which the above first appeal arises, was filed by one Sengammal and her son N.Srinivasan, against one N.Arivudai Nambi (step-brother of N.Srinivasan) and his wife and children. The prayer in the suit was for (i) a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit 'A' schedule properties (ii) cancellation of a Trust Deed dated 25.2.1970 and a Settlement Deed dated 25.2.1970 (iii) delivery of possession of plaint 'A' schedule properties and (iv) rendition of accounts for the income derived from the properties from 1956 till the date of delivery of possession.