SIVASAMY Vs. RAJAVANNIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.1181 of 1983 in the District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam on 18.10.1983 for declaration in respect of item Nos.1 to 8 of the suit properties and also for permanent injunction against the second defendant, viz., the appellant herein from bringing the suit properties for sale in execution of the decree in O.S.No.1902 of 1974 and as per the amended plaint, he also sought the relief of delivery of possession of the suit properties and for future mesne profits from 2.7.1985.

(2.) The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit.

(3.) In the plaint it is stated that the suit properties belonged to the first defendant, viz., the second respondent herein and the plaintiff purchased the same as per registered sale deed dated 26.2.1975 for Rs.11,000/- and thereafter he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The part of sale consideration was utilised to discharge the debts incurred by the husband of the first defendant, viz., the second respondent herein and another part was already received and spent by the first defendant to meet the funeral bill of her husband's demise. The plaintiff was not aware of the other loan amounts payable by the first defendant or her husband, despite the bona fide enquires made by him prior to his purchase. The first defendant also owns other immovable properties even after sale of the suit properties to the plaintiff. The second defendant obtained a simple money decree against the first defendant on 11.3.1982 in O.S.No.1902 of 1974 in the District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam and the plaintiff came to know only on 19.9.1983. Therefore, originally the plaint was filed for declaration and permanent injunction as set out above and thereafter, he amended the plaint seeking relief of possession and mesne profits stating that the second defendant, in execution of the decree in O.S.No.1902 of 1974 and during the pendency of this suit purchased the suit properties in Court auction and also taken delivery through Court on 2.7.1985. The plaintiff is not a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.1902 of 1974 and therefore, the plaintiff is a purchaser for value and without notice of the claim of the second defendant.