AYINAN CHETTIAR Vs. KRRAMASWAMI AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of this appeal is property which admittedly once belonged to one Ramachandra Aiyar. In O.S. No. 5 of 1905 a money decree was obtained against Ramachandra Aiyar. In 1910 Ramachandra Aiyar died. By 1915 the rights of the decree-holder had passed to the present 1 defendant. The suit property was sold in execution of the decree at defendant l's instance on 11 July, 1917 and was purchased by one Venkatarama Aiyar who obtained delivery through Court on 3 February, 1918. In June, 1918, Venkatarama Aiyar sold the property to defendant 2 from whom some years later defendants 3, 4 and 5 obtained mortgage rights. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff on 1 February, 1930, claiming to be the adopted son of Ramachandra Aiyar, for the recovery of the property on the ground that the sale in 1917 having been held in proceedings to which he was not a party did not bind him, and was null and void in that the estate of his father Ramachandra Aiyar was not properly represented in those proceedings.

(2.) The facts in regard to the representation of Ramachandra Aiyar's estate in the execution, petition, are as follows: Defendant 1 first attempted to implead a person named as, Subramania Aiyar and stated to be Ramachandra Aiyar's adopted son. Notice was not apparently served on any such person who admittedly did not exist with that name. Then he filed an affidavit in February 1916 in which he stated that the adopted son is said to have died about May 1915 and that Ramachandra Aiyar's only heir was his daughter-in-law Lakshmi Ammal. Notice after notice was issued to Lakshmi Ammal and finally she was added by the Court as legal representative of Ramachandra Aiyar. She remained ex parte throughout. She was in fact the widow not of any adopted son, but of a predeceased natural son of Ramachandra Aiyar so that the statement that she was Ramachandra Aiyar's heir is not correct.

(3.) On these facts it was contended by the plaintiff that defendant had deliberately and fraudulently kept the knowledge of the execution petition from him, but no attempt was made to prove this, and both Courts find that there is nothing at all to show that defendant l's actions were not bona fide. The second appeal has accordingly been argued on the common ground that defendant 1 honestly attempted to implead the correct legal representative.