RAMASAMY RAJA Vs. P SUBBAYA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE person who has landed the appellants and the respondent in this litigation is not before us. The following dates are relevant. The word "property" refers to the suit property in O. S. No. 648 of 1998, from which this Second Appeal has arisen. 12. 3. 1979.- The appellants sold the suit "property" to one K. Subbayya (the villain in this story)6. 4. 1979.- K. Subbayya executed a pronote for a sum of Rs. 50,000 being the unpaid sale consideration (Ex. B-2 ). 19. 12. 1979.- K. Subbayya entered into an agreement of sale of the "property" with the respondent. 15. 3. 1982.- O. S. No. 18of 1982 was filed by the respondent against K. Subbayya for specific performance of the agreement dated 19. 12. 1979. 5. 4. 1982.- O. S. No. 23 of 1982 filed by the appellant for recovery of money due under Ex. B-2. 5. 4. 1982.- Attachment before judgment of the "property" ordered in o. S. No. 23 of 1982. 13. 4. 1982.- Attachment effected. 16. 11. 1982.- Ex parte decree passed in O. S. No. 23 of 1982. 4. 12. 1982.- Ex parte decree in o. S. No. 18 of 1982. 16. 4. 1985.- Court executed the sale deed in favour of respondent in execution of decree in O. S. No. 18 of 1982. 24. 4. 1985.- Sale deed in respect of the "property" registered. 20. 12. 1985.- The suit property purchased by the appellants/decree holder in Court auction in execution of decree in O. S. No. 23 of 1982. 21. 12. 1986.- Court auction sale is confirmed. 24. 5. 1986.- Property delivered to the appellants/court auction purchasers. 17. 10. 2003.- Property delivered to respondent. The present suit, O. S. No. 648 of 1988, filed by the respondent is for declaration and injunction and alternatively, for possession. The trial Court found that only the appellants were in possession and, therefore, granted the alternate prayer for possession.

(2.) IN the plaint, the respondent claimed that the suit in O. S. No. 23 of the 1982 and all the proceedings pursuant thereto are collusive, brought about by fraud between the appellants and the said K. Subbayya and that the possession of the appellants is wrongful.

(3.) THE appellants claimed that the suit o. S. No. 18 of 1982 was a collusive one brought about by fraud between the respondent and the said Subbayya and that since the appellants had attached the property, any transfer after the attachment was void as against the claims enforceable under the attachment as per Section 64, C. P. C; and that the appellants alone were entitled to be in possession. According to the appellants, their possession had been given pursuant to the confirmation of sale and is not wrongful possession and so the respondent is not entitled to mesne profits or any other relief.