PALANIAMMAL DIED Vs. PASUMAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OBSTRUCTOR in E.A. No. 26 of 1981 in E.A. No. 18 of 1981 in E.P. No. 82 of 1979 in O.S. No. 423 of 1975, on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. She died after the filing of Second Appeal. Her legal representative has been impleaded as second appellant.

(2.) RELEVANT facts which have given rise to this Second Appeal may be stated as follows:- A suit was filed as O.S. No. 423 of 1975, by the first respondent herein against her husband and father-in-law for maintenance. The schedule property was alleged as belonging to her husband and she claimed a charge over the property. It was further said that her husband has executed another settlement deed in favour of his father, i.e., her father-in-law, and the same is invalid.

(3.) IN execution of the decree, the plaint property was brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder. Sale Certificates were also issued to her and pursuant to the same, when the Court Amin wanted to hand over possession, the appellant herein filed an obstruction petition. The (first) appellant (who is now no more) was none other than the mother-in-law of the decree holder. It is the case of the (first) appellant that the property was purchased by her in the year 1958, and she executed a settlement deed in favour of her son on 26-8-1964, on certain conditions. It is her further case that on 2-5-1977, she has cancelled it and she is now the owner of the property. It is her further case that the settlement deed executed by her in favour of her son, i.e., the husband of the decree-holder will not create any interest in him and, therefore, the Court sale as well as the subsequent auction through Court are all invalid. She also said that even after the settlement deed, she continues to be in possession of the property.