KRISHNAN Vs. SIVALINGA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Second Appeal No. 161 of 1990, first defendant in O.S. No. 722 of 1980, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam, is the appellant. IN Second Appeal No. 446 of 1996 the sole defendant in C.S. No. 905 of 1987, who happens to be the first defendant in the earlier suit is the appellant. Plaintiff in both the suits is one and the same. Decision in<AT>S.A. No. 161 of 1990</AT> will have bearing on S.A. No. 446 of 1996. Hence even though both the suits were not jointly tried, with the consent of parties, both the Second Appeals were heard together.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 722 of 1980 were the owners of the plaint property and as per Ex. A-1 dated 4-8-1979, plaintiff purchased the same from them. It is alleged by the appellant that defendants 2 and 3 have sold the property to him on 11-7-1979 as evidenced by Ex. B-3 in this case. The question that has to be decided is, which is the valid document which confers title over the plaint property. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff who purchased the property on 4-8-1979 as evidenced by Ex. A-1 is the owner. There is a mortgage outstanding in the property and the mortgagee is none other than the appellant. The subsequent suit was filed by the plaintiff which has given rise to the other Second Appeal, namely, S.A. No. 446 of 1996. wherein the courts below have allowed redemption. There also, the only question is, whether the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is valid or not.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the appellant, he contended that he has purchased the property as early as on 11-7-1979 even though the same was registered long thereafter. According to him, the registration after 81 days after execution of documents relates back to the date of execution and, therefore, title must be deemed to have vested in him on 11-7-1979. He, therefore, contends that the plaintiff has no title to the property, and he is the absolute owner.