C GOPALASWAMY Vs. M RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the rejection of the plaint O.S.No.64 of 2008 by the learned District Munsif, Palladam by his Order dated 13.04.2010 in I.A. No.763 of 2009. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 6 are defendants 1 to 6 respectively in the suit O.S.No.64 of 2008.

(2.) A brief resume of the facts necessary for deciding the revision are as follows:-

(3.) The revision petitioner's case is that the suit property which he had purchased under the sale deed dated 06.02006 originally belonged to one Nanjaya Gounder. The suit property is a portion of a larger extent of land in Survey Field No.398 of Sulur Village, Palladam Taluk measuring an extent of 9.66 acres. The said Nanjaya Gounder on 07.07.1996 had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein who is his son in respect of 5.00 acres out of the larger extent along with other properties. By a sale deed dated 18.02.1997 the 2nd respondent herein had sold an extent of 90 acres, viz., the suit property to the 1st respondent. It is from the 1st respondent that the revision petitioner has purchased the above property. It is the case of the revision petitioner that when he had tried to get the revenue records mutated, he found the 6th respondent herein dragging his feet and thereafter he heard some rumours that the property was sold to the 4th defendant herein. Thereafter, the revision petitioner had made an inspection in the Sub-Registrar's office where from he came to learn that under a sale agreement dated 31.07.1998, the 2nd respondent had agreed to sell not only the suit property but also the remaining extent covered by the settlement deed dated 07.07.1996. Thereafter, it appears that the property was also sold to the 4th respondent by the 2nd respondent through his power agent. This sale has been effected after the sale in favour of the 1st respondent, which had taken place on 18.02.1997 prior to the agreement which was entered into between the 2nd and 4th respondents. All this information came to the revision petitioner's knowledge just 4 months prior to filing of the suit. The revision petitioner therefore contended that the sale in favour of the 4th respondent insofar as it related to the suit property was without any title.