PAPAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. CHINNAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are defendants 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the Courts below in a suit for recovery of possession instituted by the plaintiff, claiming to be the beneficial owner of the properties, whose title was not affected by the ostensible sale deed executed by her in 1952 in favour of her brother, the first defendant, the vendor of these properties by subsequent transactions to the appellants. I might briefly state that, on the application of the criteria relevant to an alleged nominal transaction of this character, which was not intended to convey title as between the parties, the learned District Munsif of Melur who tried the suit, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish her case, and dismissed the suit as against the subsequent vendees (appellants).

(2.) THE matter came up in first appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai. He again dealt with the main matters in controversy, in the context of the tests applicable, and came to the precisely opposite conclusion. In his view, the sale deed in favour of the first defendant executed by the plaintiff was a nominal transaction which was not intended to convey title, and which did not convey title. Further, in the light of certain notices sent by the plaintiff both to the first and second defendants, the Court held that the defendants (appellants) could not claim to be bonafide transferees for value without knowledge of the real title inhering in the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed, and the suit decreed.

(3.) I shall briefly indicate the reasons justifying this remand, without proceeding into the merits in great detail, and without indicating my own view upon the facts and probabilities of the evidence.