RANGASWAMI Vs. T R C KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 359 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupattur. The properties involved in the suit admittedly belonged to them. But the case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff became the lawful owner thereof. It is stated that one T. S. Ramasesha Iyer, brought the properties to sale in execution of a money-decree which he obtained in S.C. No. 755 of 1932, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupattur, against the appellants, purchased the properties in Court auction himself and obtained the sale certificate Exhibit A-l, dated 17th April, 1935 and took such delivery as was possible under Exhibit A-2 on 4th July, 1935. It is further alleged that T.S. Ramasesha Iyer, was throughout acting as a benamidar for his brother T. S. Chengalvaraya Iyer, the explanation being that Chengalvaraya Iyer, was a retired Deputy Collector and it was felt advisable that such transactions should not figure in his name. Indeed, after the death of Ramasesha Iyer, hi; sons and grandsons executed a registered release deed Exhibit A-3, dated 10th August, 1937, acknowledging the fact that the Court auction purchase was on behalf of T. S. Chengalvaraya Iyer. The deed purports to be a release deed.

(2.) Even when the properties were purchased in the auction, they were subject to three mortgages, one of them being an usufructuary mortgage, Exhibit B-l, dated : 28th September, 1929, in favour of Jayalakshmiammal and Lalithambal, the daughter and granddaughter of Chengalvaraya Iyer. The others were simple mortgages. The case of the first plaintiff is that these mortgages were redeemed by Chengalvaraya Iyer and Chengalvaraya Iyer thus got possession and adopted the first plaintiff as his son and the first plaintiff was throughout in possession. It may be noted here besides the above relationship, the plaintiff T.R.C. Krishnan (who is the natural son of T. S. Ramasesha Iyer became the adopted son of Chengalvaraya Iyer. In other words, on account of the nearness of the relationship of the usufructuary mortgagees, it was easy for the first plaintiff to get into possession. Though the first plaintiff had leased the properties to plaintiffs 2 to 7, fearing that the defendants might interfere with their possession, the suit was brought for a declaration of the title of the first plaintiff and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. An ad interim injunction was issued. However, on the allegation that the defendants trespassed into the properties after 3rd March, 1961, the plaintiffs got the plaint amended to include a prayer for possession.

(3.) The written statement of the defendants filed originally was that they were not aware of the proceedings in execution of the decree in S.C. No. 755 of 1932, under the Court auction purchase and delivery through Court. They admitted that the first plaintiff had been in possession, but they explained it on the ground that he was looking after the properties as the agent of the usufructuary mortgagees, Jayalakshmi Ammal and Lalithambal. They further contended that on the lapse of 30 years from the date of usufructuary mortgage it got extinguished under the provision of Section 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938), and that Jayalakshmiamal and Lalithambal were good enough to recognise this fact and surrender possession of the properties to defendants 1 and 2 sometime in Chitrai (April-May) 1960. They were thus in possession. But when the trial Court granted the ad interim injunction, they vacated the lands. They disclosed the subsequent trespass of 3rd March, 1961. They thus denied the plaintiff's title and they also denied the first plaintiff's status as adopted son of Chengalvaraya Iyer.