KRISHNA GINNING FACTORY Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the plaintiff. It filed a suit in O. S. No. 747 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for declaration of its title to the suit properties and, consequently, to hold the attachment and court auction sale effected in E. P. No. 95 of 1978 in o. S. No. 403 of 1974 as void and for other consequential relief s mentioned in the plaint. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif Court , Coimbatore , and renumbered as O. S. No. 2977 of 1996. The suit was dismissed. Hence, the appellant filed an appeal in A. S. No. 148 of 2001 on the file of I Additional district Court, Coimbatore , and the said appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows: " (i ) THE suit properties were acquired by purchase on 22. 11. 1975 by P. Somasundaram Chettiar under a registered sale document. Somasundaram Chettiar had an adopted son by name P. S. Sathappa Chettiar. Somasundaram Chettiar created 1/8th interest in favour of SRMS Meenakshi Achi , the sister ofp. S. Sathappa Chettiar , and also in favour of P. S. Sathappa Chettiar. Shree Krishna Ginning Factory and the property in the schedule belong to a partnership firm. (ii) After the demise of P. Somasundaram Chettiar , P. S. Sathappa Chettiar and SRMS Meenakshi Achi became the partners of the partnership firm. In the year 1949, the partnership firm was reconstituted by transfer of Sathappa Chettiar's interest in favour of Somasundaram Mills Private Limited. (iii) In the year 1977, Smt. SRMS Meenakshi Achi retired from the partnership and relinquished her share in favour of her daughter Smt. Meenakshi Achi. Thus, the suit property has always been that of the plaintiff firm of Shree Krishna Ginning Factory. THE right, title and possession have been vested only with them for the last several years. In the meantime, the first defendant bank filed a suit against P. S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar in O. S. No. 403 of 1974 for realisation of the sums, due to it. In the said suit, the suit property was sought to be attached and the same was decreed. THEreafter, the suit property was brought to sale in auction. THE third defendant M. Shanmugam Chettiar was the auction purchaser. He filed a petition in E. P. No. 95 of 1978 in O. S. No. 403 of 1974. On coming to know of this, the plaintiff intervened and filed a claim application. THE executing Court dismissed the said application and the matter was taken up on appeal in C. M. A. No. 550 of 1981 before the High Court and the same was also dismissed, giving a right to the plaintiff to institute a separate suit. (iv) Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit for setting aside the order of attachment effected in E. P. No. 95 of 1978 in o. S. No. 403 of 1974 and to declare the consequent Court auction sale in favour of third defendant as illegal and for releasing the suit property from attachment, after upholding his right, title and interest in the suit property. "

(3.) THOUGH several grounds have been raised in the Second appeal, the learned Senior Counsel would elaborately argue that both the Courts below have committed a grave illegality in having allowed the trial to go on and gone through the entire case on merits.