PERIASAMI GOUNDER Vs. VELLAMA NAICKER AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
Chandra Reddy, J. -
(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of an action brought by the appellant for partition and separate possession of his 2/5th share in an extent of 1 acre 38 cents situated in Idayakottai Zamin, Madurai district. The suit properties originally belonged to two brothers by name Vellama Naicker and Rangappa Naicker. They conveyed their 2/5 share in the family properties by two sale deeds executed in 1927 and 1929 respectively to one Koolayappa Rowther. As the vendee failed to pay the rent due to the land holder, the properties were brought to sale and were purchased by one Mutha Naicker, the manager of the Joint family of which defendants 3 to 9 were members, in 1930 and possession was taken by the auction purchasers after having obtained the necessary sale certificate. In spite of this, Gulam Muhammad, son of the said Koolayappa Rowther, sold them to the plaintiff on 14 -8 -1943 as if title in this property still inhered in him. On the basis of this sale deed, the present suit is filed for the reliefs mentioned above. On 16 -2 -1944, defendants 3 to 9 who were the surviving members of the family of which Mutha Naicker was the managing member, sold the property to defendant 10.
(2.) THE suit was contested only by defendant 10. He filed a written statement contending that after the revenue sale, Koolayappa Rowther had no title to property and that the auction purchasers, who acquired title to this property, conveyed it to defendant 10 and that in any event as the suit was brought more than 16 years after the revenue sale it was barred by limitation. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the revenue sale was hit by Section 107, Madras Estates Land Act & therefore, the vendors did not get any title to the property and consequently they could not convey any title to defendant 10. He also found that in spite of the sale, Koolayappa Rowther, the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff continued to be the owner thereof and that the sale in favour of the plaintiff passed valid title to the property. In his opinion the suit was not barred by limitation and the plaintiff could recover possession of the property at any time ignoring the sale.
(3.) ON appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion on the effect of Section 107, Madras Estates Land Act on the revenue sale and also on the question of limitation. In the result, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.