KANDAN DIED Vs. K PERIASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. P. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The Appellants 2 to 7 are the legal representatives of the first appellant, who was the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 408 of 1978 on the file of the District Munslf Court, Sankarl laid by one Arthanari Goundar for recovery of a sum of Rs. 795.50.

(3.) Mr. S. P. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellants contends that, under the facts and circumstances of case, particularly in view of the undisputed relationship between the respondent/auction purchaser, who is the son-in-law of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 192 of 1982, the finding of the Courts below that the respondent is a bona fide purchaser is perverse and illegal apparently on the face of the records and in any event, in view of the order of restoration of the suit dated 8-3-1982, which had become final as per the order of this Court dated 1-11-1985 in C.R.P. No. 3825 of 1985, the appellants are entitled for restitution of their property as per Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.