SUSEELA Vs. RAMASAMI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 97/85 and defendants 2 and 3 in OS No. 96/85, on the file of the Sub Court Namakkal have preferred these two Second Appeals, aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in AS 279/85 and AS 91/85, on the file of the District Court Salem, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31.7.1935.

(2.) THE case in brief is for disposal of both the appeals are as follows: " THE plaintiff in O.S. 97/85 filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property. It originally belonged to one Kattiyanna Gounder and he executed a deed for maintenance in favour of his mother Kuppayammal on 10.7.1958. Since Kattiyanna Gounder did not provide maintenance as per the deed, she filed O.S. No. 1020/74 for arrears of maintenance in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered as OS 332/75 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem. THE first defendant herein was the third defendant in that suit. He set up title in himself under a revenue sale and claimed priority over the maintenance charge created in favour of Kuppayammal. However, the suit filed by Kuppayammal was decreed on 24.4.1976. As against the said decree, an appeal in A. 382/76 was filed and the same was also dismissed. When the suit was pending, the first defendant created a sham and nominal lease deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 on 26.8.1976. THE lease never came into effect and the first defendant continued to remain in possession of the property. THE lease is hit by principle of lis pendens. THE plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the Court auction sale in EP 20/79. THE property was sold on 25.4.1979 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,030/-. THE sale was confirmed on 11.10.1979. THE lease created in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by the first defendant is not binding upon the plaintiff and hence the suit.

(3.) THE first defendant in that suit is the first defendant in the other suit also. THE third defendant is the husband of the second defendant and since they have reiterated the very same averments in the other suit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the same.