Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The plaintiff, in O.S. No. 146 of 1966, originally on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Thiruvaiyaru, and later the plaintiff in C.S. No. 154 of 1967 on the file of this Court, is the appellant. Hanuman Bank, prior to its liquidation advanced monies to the second defendant on a security of immovable properties consisting of agricultural lands. After Hanuman Bank went into liquidation the Official Liquidator obtained a decree against the second defendant in 1961 and sought to bring the properties to sale. The first defendant in the suit was the successful bidder in the auction and after having been declared as such he filed C.A. No. 109 of 1965 on the file of this Court for delivery of possession of the property purchased and delivery was ordered on 25th May, 1965. The case of the plaintiff is that when the mortgage suit filed by the Bank in liquidation was pending and before the termination of the lis in a manner known to law, the second defendant under Exhibit P-1, leased out the suit properties to him in April, 1955. The plaintiff’s further case is that he continued to be in possession of the agricultural lands even after "the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 and until the first defendant attempted to take corporeal possession of the lands from him. According to the plaintiff when the. first defendant went to take possession of the properties he obstructed. Thereupon, first defendant filed E.A. No. 595 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Thiruvaiyaru for removal of obstruction caused by the plaintiff. This application was allowed. To set aside the said summary order, the plaintiff who obstructed filed the present substantive suit which was originally on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, and later transferred to the Company side of this Court. Thus, the controversy has once again arisen. It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the above execution application, the first defendant filed C.A. No. 8 of 1966 in this Court for directing delivery of possession. In this application, the plaintiff along with others was made a party. In the absence of the plaintiff, an order for delivery was made. Pursuant to this the first defendant’s case is that he took physical possession of the property on 28th March, 1966 by executing the above order for delivery. But, the plaintiff’s case is that there was no such corporeal delivery of the property, and that until he filed the present action, he continued to be in possession of the property. Presumably because, he was ex parte in the main application for delivery of possession, he filed an application to set aside the ex parte order made in C.A. No. 8 of 1966. Venkataraman, J., heard this application, but dismissed it ultimately, making it, however, clear that the order in C.A. No. 8 of 1966 will not preclude the disposal of the substantial suit which is now under consideration and by then filed by the plaintiff, on its own merits. N. S. Ramaswami, J., while disposing of the present suit has also made this observation:

"The learned counsel, who appeared for the first defendant herein has conceded that the order in C.A. No. 8 of 1966 will not bar the maintainability of the present suit, and that his client would not put forth that objection to this suit".

The parties, therefore, went to trial as if the present action is the only substantial one in which the controversy was whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue in possession of the suit property in his own right after having obtained such a right under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The answer to this as found in the written statement inter alia was that as the plaintiff was inducted into possession during the pendency of the mortgage action the lease, Exhibit P-l is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens, and no right, therefore, can be projected under it by the plaintiff, and he cannot, theref

Click Here to Read the rest of this document