P VEERASWAMI NAIDU DIED Vs. PUSHPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts which are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of these appeals are as follows:- The appellant Veeraswami Naidu instituted O.S. No.28 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chengleput, for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 19-7-1971 executed by him in favour of the 1st respondent Pushpammal and for granting a permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent Pushpammal, her agents, servants etc., from interfering with the possession of the appellant Veeraswami Naidu or in the alternative granting a decree for possession of the suit properties from the 1st repsondent Pushpammal. According to the appellant Veeraswami Naidu, the sale deed had been obtained from him under misrepresentation and that it was only intended to be a mortgage deed and thereby a fraud had been committed on him. The appellant would aver that he is the owner of the properties described in the schedule to the plaint, that he leased out the same to the 2nd respondent P.V. Radhakrishna Naidu on 2-11-1974 and transferred possession to him and that the 2nd respondent is in possession as a lessee.

(2.) Paragraph 11 of the plaint is relevant for the purpose of disposing of these appeals. It reads as follows:-

(3.) Pushpammal, the 1st respondent herein, opposed the suit O.S. No.28 of 1975 on the ground that the suit schedule cultivable lands were leaved out to her initially by the appellant Veeraswami Naidu by Muchilika dated 15-10-1970 and she was inducted into possession as a lessee first. Subsequently, the appellant sold the lands with the well, pump and pump shed and also a house site for a total consideration of Rs. 36,124/ -. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 15,400/- was to be retained by the 1st respondent Pushpammal to discharge the mortgage debts of the appellant Veeraswami Naidu and the balance of Rs. 20,724/ is to be paid to him. The arrangement was carried out. The appellant executed the document on 19-7-1971 and registered it at Madras on the next day and handed over possession of the lands to the 1st respondent Pushpammal. The 1st respondent is in possession of the suit lands in her own right and is in enjoyment of the same ever since. There was no misrepresentation as alleged by the appellant. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.