SOWBAKKIAM AMMAL Vs. GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has a checkered history. The defendants appeal before me seeking for acceptance of their appeal filed against A.S.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram dtd. 29/7/2013. By the said judgment, the learned Principal District Judge allowed the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 2007 dtd. 7/9/2009 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif at Ulundurpet.

(2.) O.S.No.35 of 2007 is a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. One Gunasekaran is the plaintiff. He claims to have purchased the property under Ex.A1 dtd. 8/7/2004. He would state that on the basis of Ex.A1 he mutated the property in his favour under Ex.A2 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying kist under Exs.A3 and A4. He would state that the defendants are seeking to interfere with his possession and as he has purchased the property from the previous owner as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of any defect in title, he is entitled to the decree.

(3.) On service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and pleaded that the property originally belonged to one Vijayarama Reddiar. They would allege that Vijayarama Reddiyar was a defaulter in payment of Government dues and therefore his property was brought for auction by the Government. In the auction sale, the Government itself purchased the property and converted the land into "Tharisu" or waste lands. Vijayarama Reddiar had four sons by name Arunachalam, Rajasundaram, Lakshminarayanan and Venkatesh. Arunachalam, on his behalf and on behalf of the other legal heirs of Vijayaramareddiar approached the District Revenue Officer for cancellation of the sale. Arunachalam was successful in his endeavour and the sale which had been held, was cancelled by the District Revenue Officer by his proceedings dtd. 12/10/1999. Arunachalam, in order to restore the property to the family, approached the second defendant for financial assistance. The second defendant readily offered to pay sums of money to retrieve the property. He had given in all a sum of Rs.80,000.00 by 12/10/1999.