Defendants are the appellants. Plaintiff-respondents brought the suit for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants with past and future profits. According to the plaint they became entitled to the suit property plot No.19 in what is known as the eastern extension scheme, Madhurai, in the following manner. Originally the first defendant was the owner of Town Survey No.2512/1 of about 32 cents and 2512/2 of 73 cents. He had borrowed from the plaintiff’s father a sum of Rs.5,000 on the 1st September, 1923 and had agreed to give a mortgage over the above properties, in addition to the promissory note which he executed. It was stated by the plaintiffs that without giving the mortgage as agreed to, the first defendant conveyed the properties to one Kuthuva Rangachari by a deed of sale of March 1924 directing him however to discharge the promissory note debt in favour of the plaintiff’s father. As the amount was not so paid the plaintiffs’ father filed a suit O.S.No.119 of 1926, Sub-Court, Madhurai, on the basis of the promissory note and on the agreement to give a mortgage and prayed for a decree for recovery of the amount both personally and by way of a charge on the properties. He obtained a decree accordingly and in execution of the charge portion of the decree he brought the above properties to sale, purchased them himself and also obtained delivery through court. It, however, happened that these survey numbers and others had been acquired by the Municipality for an extension scheme even in 1913. Instead of paying compensation in money there appears to have been an agreement between the Municipality and the various owners that the latter should be allotted sites in the areas acquired after providing for roads, streets etc. In pursuance of the scheme aforesaid plot No.19 had been allotted to the first defendant in lieu of about 23 cents of land taken away from town survey No.2512/1. The plaintiff’s case is that by virtue of this transaction his title to plot No.19 is made out and he had been in possession thereof peacefully and the first defendant trespassed upon it sometime in 1946. Hence the suit.

The first defendant’s defence was that he was in possession of the property in his own right and not in any sense as a trustee or agent of the plaintiffs or in any fiduciary capacity for them. He has been so in possession for over the statutory period as well. He had executed a sale-deed in favour of the second defendant for valuable consideration. The second defendant pleaded that he was a purchaser in good faith for consideration and had no knowledge of any infirmity of title on the part of the first defendant or of any claim or right in the plaintiffs. The third defendant was merely a lessee of the properties in his possession. The defendants denied the trespass. The lower Court framed appropriate issues and ultimately found in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants have therefore filed this appeal.

The point for determination is whether the plaintiffs have title to plot No.19 in the circumstances set out and found and whether the second defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value.

It appears from the documents filed-and it is not really challenged now-that town survey Nos.2512/1 and 2512/2 of about 32 cents and 73 cents were made a charge for the amount due to the plaintiffs’ father in O.S.No.119 of 1926 and the properties were brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder who also claims to have obtained delivery of possession of the property. Admittedly the plaintiffs are in possession of Town S.Nos.2512/1 and 2512/2 except to the extent of 23 cents which were taken away by the Municipality. In lieu of these 23 cents they claim that they have got a title to plot No.19 which according to them became really substituted for the 23 cents taken by the Municipality. Their case is put forward under different heads. It is urged that section 73 of the