Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2412
2025 MHC 239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Chinnaraj (died) & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Vembu & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.253 of 2011
Decided On : 02-01-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mr. P. Mohanraj.
For the Respondents : Mr. K. Venkatasubban for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.P.Mohanraj
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Venkatasubban for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for R1
The court confirmed that a prior court auction's validity and the finality of earlier judgments must be recognized, overriding any subsequent claims based on a settlement deed.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - The plaintiffs filed for declaration and recovery of possession of property originally belonging to their father, following a settlement deed dated 13.02.1981. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court reversed this decision, leading to a second appeal by the defendants. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 15)
(B) Settlement Deed - Validity - The defendants argued that the settlement deed was invalid and executed to defraud creditors. The appellate Court held that the deed was valid, as the plaintiffs had continuous possession for over 12 years. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 11)
(C) Court Auction - Effect on Title - The court auction proceedings were confirmed, and the plaintiffs’ father had not challenged the auction's validity in a timely manner. The appellate Court overlooked previous judgments regarding the auction. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed possession based on a settlement deed executed by their father, while the defendants claimed ownership through a court auction following a promissory note default. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court allowed the appeal based on the plaintiffs' minor status during the auction.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the first appellate Court failed to acknowledge the finality of earlier proceedings and the validity of the auction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first appellate Court was correct in granting relief based on the settlement deed when prior court orders had confirmed the auction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the first appellate Court erred by not recognizing the finality of earlier orders and the confirmed title of the auction purchaser, leading to the reversal of its decision.
Result: Second Appeal allowed; the first appellate Court's judgment is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
The defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The second plaintiff has filed the first appeal and the first appeal was allowed by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 2 to 5 have preferred this second appeal.
2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff are as follows:
The suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's father Perumal Gounder. The plaintiff's father Perumal Gounder, along with the plaintiff's mother as guardian of the plaintiff have executed a settlement deed dated 13.02.1981, in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's mother in her capacity as guardian for the plaintiffs, have accepted the settlement and had taken possession of the suit property. One Chellammal had brought the suit property for sale in order to recover the decree she had obtained in O.S.No.551 of 1981 filed against the plaintiff's father on a suit promissory note. The defendants declared that they have taken the suit property in a Court auction purchase on 23.04.1997 and attempted to enter into the suit property on 10.01.1998. Subsequent to the settlement deed dated 13.02.1981 the plaintiff's father did not have any title over the suit property and hence the Court auction in favour of the defendant will not bind the interest of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs continued to be in enjoyment of the suit property with the knowledge of the defendant for more than 12 years and by virtue of the continuous possession also they have prescribed title over the suit property. As the defendants set up the title over the suit property, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration along with the relief of recovery of possession in the event the defendant dispossesses the plaintiff's possession over the suit property.
3. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:
The suit property was originally owned by Perumal Gounder. The settlement deed dated 13.02.1981 is not valid and enforcible and it was not acted acted upon. The plaintiff's father Perumal Gounder had obtained loan from one Chellammal and had executed a promissory note. As he had defaulted to repay the loan, Chellammal filed a suit before the Thirukoilur Munsif Court in O.S.No.551 of 1981 and got a decree on 16.10.1982. Subsequently she had brought the property for Court auction and the first defendant had taken the suit property in Court auction on 19.10.1992 and the same was confirmed on 29.11.1996. Subsequently the 1st defendant filed a delivery petition in E.A.No.149 of 1997 and he had also obtained delivery through Court on 23.04.1997. The suit property is in enjoyment of the first defendant and patta has also been transferred in his name. Subsequent to the confirmation of the Court auction purchase, Perurmal Gounder has filed a suit in O.S.No.551 of 1981 to cancel the auction and the same was dismissed and Perumal Gounder has not taken any further action after the said petition was dismissed. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and Perumal Gounder had created the settlement deed in collusion with his family members just to defraud the loans he obtained from third parties.
4. The second and third defendants have also filed written statement in the same line in which the first defendant had filed the written statement. The first plaintiff has also filed a claim petition on the basis of the settlement deed in his favour before the Executing Court and requested to raise the attachment. The said petition was also dismissed on 07.10.1993 and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the first plaintiff in C.M.A.No.51/1993 has also been dismissed. Hence the plaintiff's suit itself is not maintainable.
5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff four witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On the s
