NARASHIMA NAIDU Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved against the Judgment in A.S. No.20 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, reversing the Judgment of the trial court, the Plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFF purchased the suit properties " S.No.456 " 2.80 acres and S.No.455 " 2.23 acres under a sale deed dated 27.07.1976 for consideration of Rs.3200/- from the first Defendant. The case of the PLAINTIFF is that ever since the sale deed in his favour, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. The second Defendant had filed a Suit against the first Defendant in O.S.No.130 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, for maintenance of herself and the third Defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 have obtained a decree in O.S. No.130 of 1976 for their maintenance and a charge was also created in some of the family properties. Pursuant to the decree in O.S. No.130 of 1976, Defendants 2 and 3 filed Execution Petition in R.E.P.No.83 of 1978 in O.S. No.130 of 1976 and the attachment was made to bring the suit properties to sale. According to the PLAINTIFF, he is a bonafide purchaser for value and the charge created over the properties was not made known to him and therefore, the PLAINTIFF has filed the Suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for restraining Defendants 2 and 3 by a permanent injunction from bringing the suit properties to sale, in the decree in O.S. No.130 of 1976.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court, Defendants 2 and 3 have preferred the appeal. The first Appellate Court held that inspite of knowing that there was a charge over the properties, the Plaintiff had knowingly purchased the suit properties. The lower Appellate court further held that the second Defendant objected to the registration of the sale deed under Ex.B4 and inspite of the same, the Plaintiff had purchased the same by colluding with the Plaintiff's husband. Pointing out that the sale deed was registered two months after Ex.B4 objection, the lower Appellate Court took the view that Ex.A1 sale deed was executed with a view to defeat the maintenance claim of the Defendants 2 and 3. The lower Appellate Court further held that the Plaintiff belonging to that area must have known about the dispute between the husband and wife and the suit filed by the second Defendant for maintenance and on those findings reversed the Judgment of the trial court.