SARASWATHI AMMAL Vs. T M ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff based his title to the suit property on a revenue sale held on 4-12-1961 in which he was the highest bidder and as a result of which a sale certificate had been issued in his favor. It is also the plaintiff's case that in pursuance of the revenue sale possession of the property was actually handed over to him by the revenue sale possession of the property was actually handed over to him by the revenue authorities on 24-91965 as per Ex. P. 3, that subsequent to such delivery of possession the defendant is attempting to trespass on the suit property and that therefore he is constrained to file the present suit for a declaration of title and for injunction.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the revenue sale on which the plaintiff relies was invalid and a nullity, and that the possession of the property continued to be with her, as guardian of her minor daughter. Elavarasi, in whose favor, there has been a bequest of the suit property under Ex. B-2, executed by her father. She also stated that the validity of the will Ex. B-1 has been upheld by the Civil Court in another suit. It is also her case that in view of the revenue sale being a nullity in that neither the demand notice nor the attachment order was served on the minor, who is the owner of the property, she is entitled to resist the plaintiff's attempt to get at the property without herself filing a suit as guardian of the minor to set aside the revenue sale.

(3.) THE courts below have held that the revenue sale which is the basis of the plaintiff's title, is regular and valid and that the same is not vitiated by reason of non-service of notice on the minor. Elavarasi and that the notice is found to have been duly served on the defaulter as per the records Ex. A. 6. The courts below had invoked the presumption contained in Section 114. Illustration (e) of the Indian evidence Act, for holding that the service of the demand notice and the attachment as well as notice of sale had been duly served.