The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing suits for recovery of possession and recognizes the rights of cultivating tenants under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 97/85 and defendants 2 and 3 in OS No. 96/85, on the file of the Sub Court Namakkal have preferred these two Second Appeals, aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in AS 279/85 and AS 91/85, on the file of the District Court Salem, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31.7.1935.

2. The case in brief is for disposal of both the appeals are as follows: —

The plaintiff in O.S. 97/85 filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property. It originally belonged to one Kattiyanna Gounder and he executed a deed for maintenance in favour of his mother Kuppayammal on 10.7.1958. Since Kattiyanna Gounder did not provide maintenance as per the deed, she filed O.S. No. 1020/74 for arrears of maintenance in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered as OS 332/75 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem. The first defendant herein was the third defendant in that suit. He set up title in himself under a revenue sale and claimed priority over the maintenance charge created in favour of Kuppayammal. However, the suit filed by Kuppayammal was decreed on 24.4.1976. As against the said decree, an appeal in A. 382/76 was filed and the same was also dismissed. When the suit was pending, the first defendant created a sham and nominal lease deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 on 26.8.1976. The lease never came into effect and the first defendant continued to remain in possession of the property. The lease is hit by principle of lis pendens. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the Court auction sale in EP 20/79. The property was sold on 25.4.1979 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,030/-. The sale was confirmed on 11.10.1979. The lease created in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by the first defendant is not binding upon the plaintiff and hence the suit.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement contending that Kattiyanna Gounder had brought into existence a maintenance deed in favour of Kuppayammal collusively to defeat his rights. The decrees in O.S. Nos. 332/75 and 410/73 are all collusive and the first defendant had purchased the suit property, free from all encumbrances.

4. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement and claimed that they were not parties to the earlier proceedings and as such, those decrees are not binding upon them. They are lessees under the first defendant under a lease deed dated 26.8.1976. They are in possession and enjoyment of the properties as lessees and are entitled to claim benefit under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The plaintiff is only a subsequent purchaser and the first defendant was competent to execute the lease in favour of them. Moreover, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property subject to the leasehold rights of these defendants and the plaintiff cannot question the lease.

5. The plaintiffs in O.S. 96/85 filed the suit for permanent injuction. They are defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. 97/85. They claimed relief of injunction on the ground that they are lessees in the property.

6. The second defendant in this suit and the plaintiff in the other suit filed written statement raising the very same contentions that he has purchased the suit property in the Court auction sale and the lease is not binding upon him and the lease is also hit by lis pendens and the lessees are not in possession of the property.

7. The first defendant in that suit is the first defendant in the other suit also. The third defendant is the husband of the second defendant and since they have reiterated the very same averments in the other suit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the same.

8. The trial Court framed 4 issues in O.S. 97/85 and 3 issues in O.S. 96/85. Both the suits were heard together and the evidence recorded in O.S. 97/85 is treated as evidence in the other case also. On behalf of the plaintiff PW-1 was examined and Ex.A-1 to A-16 were ma