RAMAMURTHI Vs. CHINNARAJU GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

(2.) This appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai whereby the suit for partition and separate possession instituted by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed the plaint with the following averments: The plaintiffs who are the sons of the third defendant, constitute a joint Hindu family. The ancestral properties to the extent of 2 acres and 10 cents of wet land and 1 acre of dry land were given to their father in the family partition. The 3rd defendant purchased the suit properties out of the income from those properties, and the patta stands in his name. He stayed most of the days in the town and spent most of his time in playing cards and drinking. The entire income from the joint family lands was spent by him for his immoral and illegal purposes. The 2nd defendant took a pronote from him in 1971. The said pronote was executed for Rs.1,500/- in favour of the first defendant, son of the second defendant. On the basis of the said pronote, the first defendant filed a suit in O.S.610/74 on the file of the District Munsif of Thiruvannamalai and obtained a decree against the third defendant. Thereafter, the first defendant brought the suit properties to sale in R.E.P.No.279/82. The suit properties were purchased by the second defendant in Court auction without the permission of the Court, benami, for the benefit of the first defendant. The suit properties worth Rs.75,000/-. The 2nd defendant purchased the suit lands for a paltry sum of Rs.2,010/- on 24.11.82. The 3rd defendant has not taken any steps to set aside the sale made through court auction. The sale was confirmed on 21.2.83. The debt for which the suit properties have been sold, has been contracted for the illegal and immoral purposes of the third defendant. The sale is not binding on the plaintiffs. Though the second defendant took paper delivery of the suit properties, he has not taken actual possession. The plaintiffs alone are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The agricultural operations in the suit properties were attended by the plaintiffs and their mother. Hence, the suit may be decreed.