C MANOHARAN Vs. C V SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties are referred to as per their ranking in O.S.No.303 of 1983.

(2.) THE second plaintiff is the appellant.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, after hearing the submission of either counsel, re-assessing the materials available on record, and placing much reliance upon the judicial precedent also, felt, as could be seen from the judgment, that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the case from its proper perspective, resulting landing in an erroneous conclusions. THE learned first appellate Judge, came to the conclusion that under the settlement deed, vested reminders alone given to the plaintiffs, giving life estate to their father viz. the third defendant-Chandrasekar that as per the Court auction and Court sale, followed by issuance of sale certificate under Ex.B.10, the right of the third defendant had been extinguished and therefore, the subsequent release deed executed by him, favouring the sons, is not valid in the sense, on that date, he had no transferable interest i.e. life estate also that during the lifetime of third defendant, viz. C.V.Chandrasekaran-the father of the plaintiffs, the suit filed for declaration of their title, is not maintainable. It is the further conclusion of the learned first appellate Judge that pursuant to the sale certificate issued by the Court, the auction purchaser is entitled to recover the possession legally, and that cannot be prevented, by way of permanent injunction. Arriving at the conclusions, as said above, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court, which will amount to the dismissal of the suit. Aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate Court, dated 13.8.1994, the Second Appeal has been preferred by the second plaintiff, since the first plaintiff expired during the pendency of the first appeal, as reported, at present.