KANTHAMMAL Vs. D VENKATAKRISHNA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the 8th defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding the suit properties or in the alternative for possession of the same.

(2.) THE suit properties originally belonged to defendants 1 and 2. The 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant. Defendants 3 to 7 are the children of the 2nd defendants. The 8th defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. The 8th defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant, and she is the appellant in the second appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 i. e. , father and son, mortgaged the suit properties to the plaintiff in the year 1945 for Rs. 2220. To discharge the mortgage, they sold the suit properties to the plaintiff under two sale deeds, Exs. A-2 and A-3 both dated 7-2-1949. One creditor of the 2nd defendant filed a suit O. S. 31 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vellore against the 2nd defendant and obtained a decree against him. In pursuance of the decree obtained in that suit, the creditor attached the suit properties covered by the two sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his alienees filed claim petitions in the execution proceedings which were allowed in their favour. Therefore, the creditor had to file two suits O. S. 154 and 186 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsif Court, sholinghur, to set aside the claim order. These two suits were decreed against the plaintiff. In the decree, the Court gave a finding that the sale deeds Exs. A-2 and a-3 were not true, and that they were conveyed to defraud the creditors. It was also found that though the properties were conveyed under Exs. A-2 and A-3, possession continued to be with the 2nd defendant on the date of the attachment and the 2nd defendant had right, title and interest in them. Therefore the plaintiff and his alienees filed appeal suits A. S. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1954 on the file of the sub Court, Vellore, where the findings of the trial Court were reversed. There were second appeals to this Court in S. A. Nos. 375 and 376 of 1965. The second appeals were allowed, the decision of the lower appellate Court was set aside and that the sale deeds were not genuine and that there was collusion between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant.

(3.) ANOTHER creditor filed O. S. 472 of 1953 of the file of the District Munsif Court, sholinghur, against the first and 2nd defendants. The suit was decreed in favour of the creditor and the plaintiff in that suit allowed the properties to be attached. But defendants 1 and 2 paid the decree amount in the said suit.