LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-249

S UTTAMCHAND Vs. T M DEVAN

Decided On April 23, 2007
S.UTTAMCHAND Appellant
V/S
R.ANJUGAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 10. 6. 1996, of the District Munsif, Ponneri, made in E. A. No. 469/1992 in E. P. No. 25/1992 in O. S. No. 918/1975 and against the order dated 10. 6. 1996 of the District Munsif, Ponneri, made in E. P. No. 25 of 1992 in O. S. No. 918/1975.

(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of the above two Civil Revision Petitions are as under:

(3.) THE 1st respondent herein was originally a lessee under the father of 2nd respondent herein in respect of the property namely, vacant land measuring about 1-1/2 grounds abutting Thiruvottiyur High Road in S. No. 237/42, situate within the Thiruvottiyur municipal limits, vide lease deed dated 11. 10. 1968. Pursuant to a family partition deed dated 30. 9. 1970, the above said property was allotted to 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent filed a suit in O. S. No. 918/1975 against 1st respondent for a decree directing 1st respondent to put 2nd respondent in vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 25. 3. 1978 decreed the suit, against which 1st respondent filed an appeal in A. S. No. 49/1985. During the pendency of appeal, 2nd respondent entered into a registered sale agreement with the revision petitioner for the suit schedule property in O. S. No. 918/1975. Subsequently, while the A. S. No. 49/1985 was still pending, 2nd respondent sold the property to revision petitioner by executing the sale deed dated 22. 2. 1984. In that sale deed it was clearly mentioned that revision petitioner is entitled to continue the proceedings of the suit in O. S. No. 918/1975, all applications and appeals and to take necessary steps in execution proceedings. The appeal was dismissed on 27. 11. 1986, against which 1st respondent filed S. A. No. 901/1987 before this court. When the Second Appeal was pending, 2nd respondent sold the property to 1st respondent by sale deed dated 19. 9. 1991 and on the basis of the sale deed, 1st respondent sought permission from this court to withdraw the appeal and by order dated 11. 11. 1991, S. A. No. 901/1987 was dismissed as withdrawn. The C. M. P. , filed by the revision petitioner in C. M. P. No. 14671/1991 to implead himself as 2nd respondent in the Second appeal was also dismissed by this court on 11. 11. 1991 in view of the dismissal of the main appeal itself.