The judgment establishes the principle that a purchase after a court auction sale may not confer valid title, and the maintainability of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Or.XXI, R.58(5) C.P.C.

These Second Appeals arise out of the common Judgment against the concurrent findings of the Courts below dismissing the Appellants suit O.S.No.124/2004 and decreeing the suit O.S.No.528/2001 filed by the Respondents/D10 and D11 and granting declaration of title in favour of Defendants 10 and 11 and passing preliminary decree for partition in their favour. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suits.

2. Subject matter was involved in a chain of litigations. To appreciate the contentious points, it is necessary to refer to the factual background. Uncontroverted facts are as follows:-

Suit properties relate to the lands comprised in S.F.No.134/4, Kumilamparappu village, Bhavani Taluk corresponding to old S.Nos.116/B, 117/B, 121/F, 122/A, B, C, D and E and 123/A, B, C an extent of 9.65 acres ( 98. 5 hecares). Properties are the ancestral properties of one Varanavasi Gounder.

3. Parties are related as under:-

Ramana Gounder

|

| |

Muthu Gounder Varanavasi Gounder

| |

| | | | Sengottaiyan Ramasamy Arunachalam Chenniappan

(Appellant) (J.D)

There was a parition on 010. 1973 (as mentioned in Ex.A4) between Varanavasi Gounder and his sons and in the said partition, 4.82½ acres was allotted to Arunachalam and Chenniappan.

4. Plaintiff/Appellant and his father had purchased the entire 9.65 acres from Varanavasi Gounder and his two sons under Exs.A1 to A4 sale deeds dated 17. 1968; 22. 1968; 010. 1973 and 11.03.1976. Appellant became the owner of entire extent of

3. 98.5 Hectares (9.65 acres) and that he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. One Kumarasamy filed O.S.No.539/1974 against Chenniappan for recovery of money. In the said suit I.A.No.1509/1974 was filed and obtained an order of Attachment Before Judgment ( ABJ) in respect of the lands comprised in S.F.No.134/4, Kumilamparappu village, Erode to an extent of 4.82½ acres of out of 9.65 acres. The order of ABJ was made absolute on 17.09.1978. The said suit was decreed on 08.02.1990. For the execution of decree, Decree-Holder filed E.P.No.6/86. On 19.06.1987 auction of the properties comprised in S.F.No.134/4 was ordered. On 23.01.1994, property was sold in public auction for a sum of Rs.50,200/- in favour of 3rd Defendant. On 25.01.1995 auction was confirmed and sale certificate was issued. Auction purchaser / 3rd Defendant filed E.A.No.819/95 for delivery of possession and had taken possession through Bailiff on 112. 1998. 10th Defendant Venkatachalam and his wife 11th Defendant Rajamani have purchased an extent of 2.41¼ acres each from 3rd Defendant/auction purchaser, totaling 4.82½ acres.

5. Appellant/Plaintiff Ramasamy filed O.S.No.800/1996 before District Munsif Court, Erode for declaration that he is the owner of S.F.No.134/4 corresponding to old S.F.Nos. 116/B; 127/B; 121/F; 122/A, B, C, D and E and 123/A, B, C total extent of 9.65 acres and for consequential injunction. Suit O.S.No.800/1996 was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.124/2004 on the file of I Additional Sub-Court, Erode.

.6. Case of Appellant/Plaintiff is that he is entitled to the entire extent of 9.65 acres and that 3rd Defendant/auction purchaser cannot have any right over the property and that auction purchaser is trying to dispossess him. During the pendency of suit, D10 and D11 who were purchasers from auction purchaser have been impleaded as Defendants 10 and 11 in O.S.No.800/1996 (re-numbered as O.S.No.124/2004).

7. In his written statement, 3rd Defendant/auction purchaser contended that in order to defeat and defraud the court auction, Plaintiff has filed the suit in collusion with the Judgment-Debtor/2nd fendant. Auction purchaser has alleged that Appellant/Plaintiff is the close relative of 2nd fendant and that Plaintiff had known about the pendency of suit O.S.No.539/1974 and the execution proceedings and Appellant/Plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser.

8. Defendants 10 and 11 who purchased the properties from 3rd Defendant/a