Auction-purchaser would not acquire a better right than judgment-debtor.

P.K. Misra, J

Plaintiffs are the appellants against the reversing judgment.

2. The suit was filed for declaration that A schedule property exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs or in alternative for partition of half share in B schedule property of which A schedule is a part. According to the plaintiffs case, the properties originally belonged to two brothers, Palanivel and Chockalingam. Palanivel had two sons Narayanasamy and Manickam. The plaintiffs are the grandsons of Narayanasamy, being the son of Gnanasambandam. On 21.7.1912, in a partition, the properties described in A schedule were allotted to Chockalingam and the properties described in B schedule of the same document were allotted to Narayanasamy and Manickam, two sons of Palanivel. Out of 310 acres comprised in Survey No.67, which was dealt with in partition, after sale of certain portions, the total extent was reduced to 2.72 acres and in resettlement proceedings in 1922, the properties had been allotted and enjoyed by Narayanasamy and Manickam. On 5.4.1933, in a partition, A schedule property was allotted to the share of Manickam as per Ex.A-39. The said property was sold by Manickam to one Appar Mudaliar on 11.9.1940 as per Ex.A-2. On 26.2.1942, the property purchased by Appar Mudaliar was sold in favour of Sambanda Mudaliar of Naduveerapattu (A petition for accepting such document dated 26.2.1942 as additional evidence has been filed in the present appeal). On 9.2.1950, the property purchased by Sambanda Mudaliar was sold to Narayanasamy as per Ex.A-3. After the death of Narayanasamy in 1965, the plaintiffs branch entitled to whole of the said property. Chockalingams share was sold in court auction and had been purchased by defendants father. There was no delivery of possession pursuant to the court auction sale and at any rate the courts sale could confer right, title and interest of the judgment debtor, namely, Chockalingams half interest, which was 1.36 acres, out of 2.72 acres recorded in the resettlement. This property was always used as house-site and there were no demarcation. In resettlement proceedings in 1976, the properties were converted from acres to hectares and now comprised in three patta numbers in the joint name of plaintiffs father Sambanda Mudaliar and S.K. Velayudha Mudaliar. The plaintiffs father was paying kist and house tax and the defendant has no right in A schedule property and he is not entitled to any extent more than the Chockalingams share. The defendant had also treated such property as if a joint family property of the defendant and the plaintiffs and in the partition among the defendant and his son only half share of the entire extent had been dealt with. On 5.11.1978, in a partition in the family of plaintiffs and their father, the suit property had been allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. Since the defendant attempted to trespass into South Western portion of the suit property and prevented the plaintiffs from demarcating, the suit had been filed for the reliefs claimed.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the main allegations of the plaintiffs have been denied. According to the defendant, his father had purchased the entire extent in the Survey Number in court auction dated 21.12.1933, which was confirmed on 29.9.1934, and his father had taken delivery of possession and after his death, the defendant has continued to be in possession. In 1975, Sri Muthumariamman Temple had filed a suit against the defendant and Gnanasambanda Mudaliar, father of the plaintiffs, in respect of the said property. Such suit was dismissed on the ground that temple had no right and the defendant and his father were entitled to same. The appeal filed by the temple was also dismissed. Thus, the title of the defendant and his father had been upheld in a litigation, wherein the father of the plaintiffs was a co-defendant along with the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant had filed O.S.No.1290 of 1974 against S.K.V. High