- (1.)THE first defendant, having aggrieved by the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court, has filed the above Second Appeals.
(2.)THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 61 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court , tenkasi for declaration and recovery of possession from the appellant/first defendant, on the basis that she purchased the property under Ex. A. 2 dated 14. 3. 1986 from the second defendant. THE appellant who is the first defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1986 , contested the suit contending inter alia that she was in possession of the property as a tenant and subsequently mortgage deeds were created under exs. A. 10 and A. I 1 over the suit property in her favour and the parties agreed to adjust the interest in payment of rent. Subsequently, the second defendant agreed to sell the property to the first defendant/appellant and entered into an agreement under Ex. B. 3 dated 20. 11. 1985. According to the appellant/first defendant, the possession from 20. 11. 1985 was on the basis of the agreement and not as a tenant. On that basis, she has come forward with a plea that she is entitled to protection under Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. THE appellant also came forward with a plea that the agreement under Ex. A. I and the sale agreement under Ex. A. 2 in favour of the plaintiff were only to defraud the first defendant/appellant.
The trial court found that the plaintiff is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the agreement under Ex. B. 3 in favour if the appellant and the first defendant is entitled to protection under Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. On the basis of the said finding, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also filed another suit in O. S. No. 90 of 1988 for redemption of mortgage on the basis that the sale under Ex. A. 2 was subject to the mortgage deeds under Exs. A. 10 and A. I 1. The appellant contested the said suit on the basis that the amount payable under the mortgage had been adjusted toward sale consideration as mentioned in Ex. B. 3 dated 20. 11. 1985 and so the said suit is not sustainable. Accepting that, the trial court also dismissed the said suit. Hence, the plaintiff filed appeals in A. S. No. 135 and 136 of 1990.

The lower appellate Court found that Ex. B. 3 is a valid agreement. It also found that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value under Ex. A. 2. The lower appellate court rejected the case of the appellant stating that she cannot claim any protection under Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. On the basis of the said findings, the lower appellate court has allowed the appeals and consequently, decreed the suit. Hence, the first defendant has filed the above second appeals.

The substantial questions of law which were framed for consideration in these second appeals are as follows: "1. Is the second defendant entitled to the benefits of Section 5 3-A of the Transfer of Property Act" 2. Is not the learned I Addl. District Judge wrong in holding that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property when he had knowledged of the prior agreement of sale of the suit property between the second defendant and the first defendant" 3. When the case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant is a tenant in the suit property, is the learned I Addl. District judge right in decreeing the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property from the second defendant" 4. Is the learned I Addl. District Judge right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the suit property when there is no mortgage in substance"

(3.)THERE is no dispute that the plaintiff purchased the suit property under Ex. A. 2 dated 14. 3. 1986. It is also not in dispute that there was an agreement in favour of the appellant under Ex. B. 3 dated 20. 11. 1985. In view of the fact that both court's concurrently found that the agreement marked as Ex. B. 3 in favour of the appellant/first defendant is a valid agreement, we have to decide the case on the basis of the said finding.
The main dispute in this case is whether the plaintiff/first respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value of the suit property without notice of the agreement marked as Ex B. 3 in favour of the appellant"

According to the plaintiff, she had no knowledge about the agreement marked as Ex. B. 3 dated 20. 11. 1985 and she deposed that she was represented by the owner that the defendant is in possession of the property only as a tenant. On that basis, she entered into an agreement.