TAMIL SELVI Vs. DHAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitioners are daughters of the second respondent, who is defendant in O.S.No.164 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, which is filed by the first respondent for recovery of money. The third and fourth respondents are stated to be mortgagors from the second respondent.

(2.) (i) In the petition in E.A.No.305 of 2004 filed by the petitioners before the executing Court, it is stated that it has been filed by the first petitioner and the minor second and third petitioners through their mother by name Bagavathy. The first respondent was proclaiming that he was taking steps to bring the suit property namely, the residential house, in which the petitioners are residing, for the Court auction. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) from the first respondent on a pronote and he filed a suit in O.S.No.164 of 1999 and obtained money decree on 03.01.2000 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur and the decree has been transferred to the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, that E.P.No.2 of 2002 was filed by the first respondent for attachment of the sale of properties, in which on 30.01.2002 the property was attached and thereafter on 26.07.2004, the first respondent bid the property in Court auction as directed by the Court for a sum of Rs.45,100/- and that he has deposited the sale consideration into the Court.

(3.) THE petitioners preferred appeal from the order of the executing Court before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil in C.M.A.No.9 of 2006, which also suffered dismissal on 28.02.2008. THE learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil, while appreciating the oral evidence on record, has observed that the first petitioner, during his examination, has admitted that she is a Christian and hence it transpires that the petitioners and their parents also belong to Christianity, wherein the concept of ancestral property is not available; since it is the categorical admission of the first petitioner, it has to be taken as such and there is nothing to repel in these circumstances. Both the Courts below have uniformly held that there is no pleadings that the second respondent borrowed money from the first respondent for immoral purposes, which are not for legal necessities. This Court endorses the view taken by both the Courts below.