Void transfer of property cannot be saved.

Common Order:

These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 6. 1996, of the District Munsif, Ponneri, made in E.A.No.469/1992 in E.P.No.25/1992 in O.S.No.918/1975 and against the order dated 6. 1996 of the District Munsif, Ponneri, made in E.P.No.25 of 1992 in O.S.No.918/1975.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of the above two Civil Revision Petitions are as under:

3. The 1st respondent herein was originally a lessee under the father of 2nd respondent herein in respect of the property namely, vacant land measuring about 1-1/2 grounds abutting Thiruvottiyur High Road in S.No.237/42, situate within the Thiruvottiyur municipal limits, vide lease deed dated 110. 1968. Pursuant to a family partition deed dated 30.9.1970, the above said property was allotted to 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.918/1975 against 1st respondent for a decree directing 1st respondent to put 2nd respondent in vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 23. 1978 decreed the suit, against which 1st respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.49/1985. During the pendency of appeal, 2nd respondent entered into a registered sale agreement with the revision petitioner for the suit schedule property in O.S.No.918/1975. Subsequently, while the A.S.No.49/1985 was still pending, 2nd respondent sold the property to revision petitioner by executing the sale deed dated 22. 1984. In that sale deed it was clearly mentioned that revision petitioner is entitled to continue the proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.918/1975, all applications and appeals and to take necessary steps in execution proceedings. The appeal was dismissed on 211. 1986, against which 1st respondent filed S.A.No.901/1987 before this court. When the Second Appeal was pending, 2nd respondent sold the property to 1st respondent by sale deed dated 19. 1991 and on the basis of the sale deed, 1st respondent sought permission from this court to withdraw the appeal and by order dated 111. 1991, S.A.No.901/1987 was dismissed as withdrawn. The C.M.P., filed by the revision petitioner in C.M.P.No.14671/1991 to implead himself as 2nd respondent in the Second appeal was also dismissed by this court on 111. 1991 in view of the dismissal of the main appeal itself.

4. The revision petitioner filed E.P.No.25/1992 in O.S.No.918/1975 to execute the decree dated 23. 1978. In E.P.No.25/1992, the 1st respondent herein filed E.A.No.469/1992 under Sec.47 C.P.C., praying that the decree dated 23. 1978 made in O.S.No.918/1975 is not executable against him, the sale deed dated 19. 1991 executed by 2nd respondent in his favour is binding on the revision petitioner and the sale deed dated 22. 1984 executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the revision petitioner is void and unenforceable. The executing court by order dated 6. 1996 allowed the Sec.47 Application and consequently dismissed E.P.No.25/1992 and aggrieved by the same the above revision petitions have been filed.

5. It is the case of the 1st respondent herein before the executing court that he was a tenant under 2nd respondents father and when the suit filed by 2nd respondent was pending, in S.A.No.901/1987, 2nd respondent offered to sell the land and believing honestly that the offer was bonafide, he purchased the property by sale deed dated 19. 1991 registered as document No.3419/1991 at Sub-Registrar Office, Thiruvottiyur. The 1st respondent contended that the fact of the revision petitioner having purchased the property from 2nd respondent on 22. 1984 was never brought to the notice of the appellate court at any point of time. Even in S.A.No.901/1987, 2nd respondent alone filed vakalat and contested the appeal. Therefore according to 1st respondent the sale deed dated 22. 1984 was never acted upon. 1st respondent has also drawn support from Sec.41 of the Transfer of Property Act as according to 1st respondent, the revision petitioner set