APPASAMY REAL ESTATES LTD Vs. NEELAYATHATCHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application taken out by the 54th defendant to reject the plaint and consequently to dismiss the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) REJECTION of plaint is sought for on the ground that the relief claimed in the plaint is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs in their counter affidavit would state that the relief claimed in the plaint is in time. It is their case that they came to know in October 2002 that in getting the sale deed dated 29.05.1951 executed, the first defendant had played a fraud on the original owners of the suit property namely, Sivagami Ammal and Pushpakanthammal. The plaintiffs rely upon the averments made by them in paragraph No. 25 of the plaint in regard thereto. Therefore their case is that, no ground is made out to reject the plaint.

(3.) THE plaint proceeds on the basis that while the first defendant was having his eyes on the property in question, another person by name Vijayaraghava Mudaliar was also trying to grab that property. With that in his mind, the allegation in the plaint is that, he brought a fraudulent mortgage over the property in question in favour of General Bank Limited. Vijayaraghava Mudaliar brought into existence the said mortgage deed solely with a view to put pressure on the bank to bring the property to sale and then to buy the same in the auction at a throw away price. THE further allegation in the plaint is that General Bank Limited went into liquidation by this court's order in O.P. No. 63 of 1953 and the Official Assignee in whom the assets of the company wound up vested, sold the property in court auction and in that court auction, the property in question was purchased by Vijayaraghava Mudaliar in the name of his wife Radhabai for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,200/- as early as 23.08.1957. THE third angle of the plaintiff's case is that there was yet another person by name Alagappa Devar, who also had his eyes set on this property based on an agreement of sale in his favour for a stated sale price of Rs. 6,000/-. He filed a suit in O.S. No. 256 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court, Chengalpattu and got an ex parte decree on 20.1.1979 and the court executed the sale deed in favour of said Alagappa Devar. THErefore it is clear from the plaint allegations that three persons, namely, first defendant (defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant); Vijayaraghava Mudaliar, whose legal representatives are defendant Nos. 6 to 39 and Alagappa Devar, who is defendant No. 42 in this application, are guilty of playing fraud in respect of the property in question on Sivagami Ammal and Pushpakanthammal. Sivagami Ammal is shown to have died intestate and the first plaintiff is the daughter of Pushkanthammal. THE plaint shows that Pushpakanthammal died on 1.12.2002 and Sivagami Ammal died prior to her. But however, it appears from the plaint that the sale in favour of defendant Nos. 46 to 55 is by the first defendant and the other persons referred to earlier have signed in those sale deeds as confirming parties.