Order.- This petition is preferred by one Nachimuthu Gounder for modification of the order dated 4th December, 1975 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P. Nos. 2069 and 289o of 1974, by deleting certain observations made in the said order.

2. Before mentioning the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by him, in support of this petition, it is necessary to indicate certain facts relating to the proceedings leading to this petition.

3. It is the common case that the first respondent herein viz., Sellammal filed a criminal complaint in C.C. No. 362 of 1969 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari, against her husband Nachimuthu Gounder (second respondent herein) and others for an offence of bigamy alleged to have been committed by the said Nachimuthu Gounder, which ultimately ended in his acquittal. Against the said order of acquittal, the first respondent Sellammal filed a criminal appeal in C.A.No. 252 of 1970 on the file of this Court. It seems that before this Court both parties entered into a compromise on 6th March, 1973 which provided, inter alia, that her husband (first respondent herein) should settle some properties in favour of his wife Sellammal and should also restore some gold jewellery weighing about eight sovereigns or their value within one year from the date of the said compromise. The learned Judge also ordered that in case the second respondent herein failed to handover possession of the properties and to restore the jewels, the first respondent herein could take appropriate action in the matter. The second respondent had. also given an undertaking to restore to the first respondent the gold jewellery or their value and had represented that he had already executed a settlement deed in respect of the properties in favour of Sellammal (first respondent). This compromise was entered into after the said appeal was adjourned on several occasions spreading for a period of over one year. The settlement deed mentioned by the second respondent had been executed by him and his father (fifth respondent herein) on 19th December, 1972. According to Sellammal, the first respondent herein, she had been put in possession of the said properties in February, 1974 in pursuance of the said settlement deed. While so, S. Nachimuthu Gounder, the present petitioner, filed O.S. No. 868 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Sankari, against Sellammal, her father and her brothers, alleging that he bad purchased the said properties in execution of a money decree in O.S. No. 870 of 1972 on the file of Sub-Court, Salem, obtained by one Kaliappan against the second respondent (Nachimuthu Gounder, Sellammal’s husband), which purchase was also confirmed on 30th October, 1973. The case of the petitioner is that he has taken delivery of the properties on 18th April, 1974 through Court and is in possession thereof since then. While so, Sellammal had filed two petitions in Crl.M.P. Nos. 2069 and 2891 of 1974 in this Court. Crl.M.P. No. 2o69 of 1974 was for a direction clarifying the compromise order dated 6th March, 1973 in Crl.A.No. 252 of 1970 since the value of the gold had not been fixed in the said order. The other petition Crl.M.P.No. 289 of 1974 was to direct respondents 2 and 5 herein to discharge the encumbrance over the properties settled in her favour by the settlement deed dated 19th December, 1972 or to direct them to convey some other property without any encumbrance.

4. It transpires from the affidavit filed in Crl.M.P. No. 2891 of 1974 by one Subramaniam, brother of Sellammal, that the said Kaliappan, the decree-holder in O.S.No. 870 of 1972, is no other than the uncle of the second wife of Nachimuthu Gounder (second respondent herein) that the present petitioner, viz., the auction-purchaser is another uncle’s son of the second wife of Nachimuthu Gounder, that all of them had colluded together and that respondents 2 and 5 herein had. allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte and the execu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document