Indemnity created by vendor in the sale deed not hit by Rule of Perpetuity.

1. The 7th defendant in O.S.No.82 of 1977, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.7,332 being the principal and interest due as damages for the amount paid by the plaintiff to safeguard her title in respect of the B schedule property and in default of such payment, for a direction for the sale of the A schedule property for the payment of the said amount.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the Courts below was that one Muthukaruppan Chettiar and his brother Saminathan Chettiar sold a building to the plaintiff described in the B schedule, on 25.6.1960 under sale deed, the original of which is marked as Ex:B.4 and a registration copy of the same is marked as Ex.Al, for valuable consideration of Rs.6,000 claiming themselves to be the full and exclusive owners of the building. The 1st defendant is said to be the son of Muthukaruppan Chettiar, one of the vendors, and defendants 2 to 5 are said to be the heirs of Saminathan Chettiar, the other vendor, of the plaintiff. Though the vendors assured the plaintiff about their full and exclusive title to the property sold, subsequently, the mother of the vendors, filed O.S.No.70 of 1963 on the file of Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli, claiming partition of the properties by impleading the present plaintiff, as the 9th defendant. The said suit ended in an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.976 of 1996, wherein, it was confirmed that the plaintiffs vendors had title only to 98/120 shares in all the properties. The said judgment was considered to operate as res judicata and when steps were taken to pass a final decree, the plaintiff was compelled to negotiate with the successful plaintiffs in the other suit and ultimately, she had to pay Rs.7,000 for the said share of 22/120 to have the property purchased by her exonerated from the defect in its title. Defendants 6 and 7 are said to be the subsequent purchasers of portions of A schedule property, shown as security to safeguard the full and effective title of the vendor. It was in such circumstances the suit came to be filed for the relief, as noticed supra.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and claiming that there cannot be any res judicata in the matter, on account of the earlier proceedings, that the claim of the plaintiff that she was compelled to compromise the earlier proceedings for securing title in respect of 22/120 shares by paying Rs.7,000 on 24.4.1976, was incorrect and that therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the same, towards damages for breach of the covenant of title on the security of the A schedule property.

4. The second defendant also filed a written statement, adopted by defendants 3 to 5, denying all the allegations and claims made by the plaintiff and also contending that the sale deed dated 25.6.1960 was not binding on defendants 3 to 5; who were minors at that time and in any event, the indemnity said to have been given by the vendors, is not binding on them or their share in the A schedule property. While contending that the plaintiff has nor cared to properly defend or contest the earlier suit and the appeal and accusing her of negligence, it was also contended that even if she had paid any amount to the plaintiff in the prior suit, it is not binding on these defendants. A plea that the property was worth really more and was sold for a grossly inadequate price without any necessity therefor, has also been raised.

5. The 6th defendant contended that the sale deed executed in his favour with regard to the A schedule property was a sham and nominal document and when he came to know of that, he also transferred his interest by executing a sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant and that, therefore, he had no subsisting interest in the said schedule property and he is not liable to the suit claim.

6. As far as the 7t