B TIRUVALLOOR PILLAI Vs. SESHADRI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who failed in both the courts below is the appellant. He filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by him or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the same. The suit properties are comprised in S. No. 200/6 of an extent of 2-66 acres and S. No. 201 measuring 0-15 cents. The first defendant is the purchaser of the suit properties in the revenue sale and the second defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector who ordered the revenue sale. Defendants 3 to 5 are the brothers of the plaintiff and the 6th defendant is his wife.

(2.) THE suit properties belonged absolutely to one Kanakavalli Ammal, the plaintiff's mother. She had borrowed a loan of Rs. 2,000 from the 2nd defendant for the purchase of an oil engine, the loan being repayable in 10 monthly instalments on the security of the first item of the suit properties. Ex. B-9 dated 8-3-1954 is the security bond executed by Kanakavalliammal and others in favour of the second defendant in respect of that item. But the said Kanakavalliammal had earlier executed a settlement deed Ex. A-1 dated 19-11-1951 in respect of both the items whereunder she has created a life interest for herself and another life interest in favour of the plaintiff, and thereafter granted an absolute interest in favour of the plaintiff's minor sons. As the said Kanakavalliammal did not pay the instalments due as per the provisions of the security bond Ex. B-9, both the items of properties were sold by the second defendant under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act on 21-111960 and the first defendant became the successful bidder. The sale was confirmed on 17-5-1962 and the first defendant is said to have taken delivery of the suit properties on 14-7-1962. On 16-12-1960 Kanakavalliammal had issued a notice under Section 80, C. P. Code to the second defendant to the effect that she intends to file a suit for setting aside the revenue sale held on 21-11-1960. But kanakavalliammal died on 17-9-1961. The plaintiff has thereafter filed the present suit in 1964 for the reliefs detailed above without issuing a fresh notice under section 80. C. P. Code, but relying on the notice issued by his mother under Ex. A11 in 1960. In the suit the plaintiff has questioned the validity of the revenue sale on various grounds.

(3.) THE first defendant resisted the suit contending that the revenue sale was not invalid as alleged by the plaintiff, that the properties have been sold for a reasonable price that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the sale, that the sale was confirmed only after the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 had exhausted their remedies provided under the Revenue Recovery Act upto the Board of revenue for setting aside the sale and that in any event, the plaintiff had no subsisting interest in the suit properties. It was also contended that the suit is barred under Section 37-A, 38 and 59 of Madras Act 2 of 1864 and that the suit is also bad for want of notice under Section 80. The stand taken by the second defendant was practically the same. Defendant 3 to 6 supported the case of the plaintiff.