P KANNADASAN Vs. POWNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore in A.S. No 18 of 1984 dated 21.12.1984 in confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Vellore in O.S. No. 2373 of 1981, dated 3.1.1984.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of the pleadings that the suit property originally belonged to the second defendant, that the second defendant had antecedent debts and other pressing financial commitments and therefore, he wanted to sell the suit property, that the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the second defendant and as per the agreement price was fixed at Rs. 31,500/- that after receiving the consideration the defendant had executed a registered sale deed on 15.10.1980 and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. Thus by virtue of the sale deed dated 15.10.1980 the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff also claimed that he was in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. The plaintiff further pleaded that the second defendant had lost his title and interest in the suit property and that after alienating the property, the second defendant settled down at Kil Murungai village, that the first defendant is the wife of the second defendant, the first defendant for herself and on behalf of her minor children appears to have filed a suit in O.S. No. 456 of 1975 on the file of District Munslf, Vellore, for maintenance against the second defendant payable at Rs. 75/- per month towards maintenance. Subsequently, the first defendant also appears to have filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No. 175 of 1981 and brought the property for sale. The plaintiff contended that the first defendant was not entitled to bring the property for sale as her maintenance claim was satisfied by virtue of the sale deed dated 15.10.1980 and the second defendant had in fact received a sum of Rs 6,000/- from the plaintiff for the discharge of the decree debt and the second defendant had also made arrangements for the payment of maintenance amount by depositing the amount in Vummidiyar Bankers in Madras. The deposit receipt was handed over to the first defendant and further the second defendant had also sent a Demand Draft for Rs 700/- towards arrears of maintenance upto 31.10.1980. Therefore, the first defendant was not entitled to bring the suit property for sale in E.P. No. 175 of 1981 for realisation of the decree debt. The plaintiff suspects that the defendants are colluding together and are attempting to defraud the plaintiff. Hence the suit property was not liable to be brought for sale. The plaintiff came to know about the sale of the property on 14.10.1981 and came to know about the fraud played by the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration of his right and title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property